Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Tomographer: End-to-end Redshift Distribution Estimation for Source Catalogs and Intensity Maps

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

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

Pith's one-line read Tomographer returns bias-weighted redshift distributions for source catalogs and intensity maps from sky positions alone.

desk verdict Solid, thoroughly validated clustering-redshift tool with a real speedup via activation maps; the only serious caveat is that the absolute normalization is anchored internally, not independently. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03415 v1 pith:UD3APBJL submitted 2026-08-04 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Yi-Kuan Chiang , Yu Voon Ng , Yu-Ren Lin , Manuchehr Taghizadeh-Popp , Brice Ménard This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords clusteringredshiftsbias-weightedredshiftdistributionestimationintensitymappingtomographyactivationmapsHEALPixspectroscopicreferencesamplelarge-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

Tomographer aims to make clustering-based redshift estimation routine: given only the sky positions of a source catalog, or a diffuse intensity map, it returns the bias-weighted redshift distribution—$b(z)\,dN/dz(z)$ for sources, $b(z)\,dI/dz(z)$ for maps—over $0

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the activation map: for each redshift slice of the reference sample, a HEALPix map in which each pixel accumulates weighted counts of reference objects within a fixed projected physical annulus (default $0.5$–$10\,h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}$), with per-pair weight $\theta^{\gamma-1}$. One map is built from the reference data and one from its random catalog, thereby encoding both the large-scale structure signal and the survey selection function. At run time any source catalog or intensity map is pixelized onto the same HEALPix grid, and every correlation estimator—test–reference cross terms and reference auto-correlation—becomes an inner product between that pixel vector and the precomputed activation maps. This is what converts pair-counting from $O(N\log N)$ into $O(1)$ map multiplications and makes the redshift decomposition run in minutes on a laptop.

What would settle it

Build a simulated galaxy catalog with a known, strongly scale-dependent bias, give it a known $dN/dz$, run Tomographer, and check whether the recovered $b(z)dN/dz$ matches the input within the bootstrap errors; a mismatch beyond the quoted uncertainties would falsify the linear-bias factorization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Tomographer's central claim is that a single end-to-end tool, built on a fixed spectroscopic reference sample, can recover the bias-weighted redshift distribution of essentially any projected extragalactic field. For a source catalog the output is $b(z)\,dN/dz(z)$; for an intensity map it is $b(z)\,dI/dz(z)$, in both cases over $0<z\lesssim4$ with absolute normalization and in fine redshift bins. The inference uses the standard clustering-redshift relation $\bar w_{\rm tr}(z_i)=\bar w_m(z_i)\,b_t(z_i)\,b_r(z_i)\,dS/dz(z_i)$, with the reference bias $b_r$ measured from the reference auto-correlation and the matter anchor $\bar w_m$ computed from the nonlinear matter power spectrum under Limber's approximation. What the user receives is the test field's bias-weighted redshift content, with the reference bias divided out and the theoretical matter correction applied. The paper supports this claim with validation against spectroscopically known samples, sharp top-hat reconstructions, reference-independence tests, synthetic intensity maps with beam smoothing and foregrounds, and an external comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The recovery assumes that on the chosen scales the clustering of the test and reference populations is each a fair, scale-independent multiple of the matter clustering, so that the scale-dependent parts cancel and the measured cross-correlation factorizes into bias times redshift distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Photometric-redshift bins can be validated and recalibrated from positions alone, with sharp-edge resolution that photo-$z$ methods smooth out.
  • Diffuse backgrounds from radio to X-rays can be decomposed into bias-weighted redshift contributions without detecting individual sources.
  • A survey's target-selection response can be characterized before spectroscopy begins, as the DESI imaging-target example shows.
  • Because bootstrap realizations are shared across runs, multi-band or multi-sample tomographies can be combined with consistent covariances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same activation-map construction could be rebuilt on any future spectroscopic reference, so the $O(1)$ runtime is a property of the architecture, not of this particular reference sample.
  • A natural testable extension is to use Tomographer as a survey-systematics diagnostic on every imaging catalog: repeated footprint-split runs would flag spatially varying selection functions that manifest as shape changes in the recovered distribution.
  • Although the paper notes the bias-weighted kernel is the fundamental quantity for large-scale structure, a practical corollary not developed is that these outputs can be fed directly into cross-correlation analyses with CMB lensing or the integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Tomographer, a publicly released end-to-end clustering-redshift framework. The central design is a set of precomputed HEALPix 'activation maps' built from ~3 million SDSS spectroscopic galaxies and quasars over 10,440 deg^2; any test source catalog or intensity map is projected onto the same pixel grid, and all cross- and auto-correlation measurements reduce to inner products, removing user-side pair counting. The output is the bias-weighted redshift distribution b(z) dN/dz for source catalogs or b(z) dI/dz for intensity maps over 0 < z < 4. The authors validate the method against SDSS spectroscopic samples with known redshift distributions, show recovery of sharp top-hat edges, demonstrate reference-independence by analyzing a single test sample against five different spectroscopic reference subsamples, test sensitivity to footprint splits and a synthetic completeness gradient, compare shapes with the independent analysis of Krolewski et al. (2020) for unWISE galaxies, and validate the intensity-map mode with synthetic maps subject to beam smoothing and foregrounds. The paper also presents ten example applications spanning source-catalog and intensity-map inputs from radio to X-ray wavelengths.

Significance. If the claims hold, Tomographer substantially lowers the technical barrier to clustering-redshift estimation: it ships with a curated, bias-characterized reference sample, eliminates user-side pair counting, and extends the method to intensity maps in a single workflow. The activation-map architecture is elegant and the validation suite is unusually broad: known-redshift recovery, sharp-edge resolution, reference-independence across five tracers, latitude splits, a synthetic completeness gradient, an external shape comparison, and a synthetic intensity-map test with beam and foreground effects. The code is publicly available, and the paper is candid about the bias degeneracy and truncation limits of the reference coverage. The main weakness is that the absolute normalization of b(z) dS/dz, which the paper advertises as a headline deliverable, is validated only internally against truth estimates that share the same theory and estimator ingredients; the single external comparison is shape-only because the comparison catalog was published with arbitrary normalization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Section 3.3] The absolute amplitude of b(z) dN/dz is validated only against 'truth' curves derived from the auto-correlation of the same spectroscopic samples divided by the same theoretical matter anchor w_m and the same empirically measured reference bias b_r (Section 4.1; the truth construction is described in the text above Figure 7). Any normalization error in the halofit-based w_m on the adopted 0.5-10 Mpc/h scales, or any common estimator normalization factor, cancels exactly in this comparison, and the unit-Gaussian residuals in Figure 7 cannot detect it. Because the abstract, Section 3.4, and Section 6.2 claim that Tomographer directly recovers the absolute physical normalization of b(z) dS/dz, this is a load-bearing validation gap rather than a cosmetic one. I recommend adding an external amplitude anchor: for example, a mock galaxy catalog with a known input b(z) dN/dz run through the full pipeline, or a comparison of the recovered b(z) dN/dz for a well-studied sample whose bias is independently calibrated by galaxy-galaxy lensing or by clustering ratios.
  2. [Section 4.5] The synthetic intensity-map test uses the Tomographer source-mode output on the same galaxies as the reference 'truth' for the intensity-mode validation. This validates the beam- and foreground-handling machinery of the intensity mode relative to the source mode, but it does not provide an independent check on the absolute scale of b(dI/dz): any normalization error in the source-mode estimator propagates directly into the adopted truth. The paper should either add an external or mock-based intensity-map test with a known b(z) dI/dz amplitude, or explicitly state in the conclusions that the intensity-mode absolute normalization rests on the same unanchored ingredients as the source mode.
  3. [Section 6.2 and Section 3.3] The paper acknowledges that scale-dependent bias is 'absorbed into the effective b_t and b_r' and argues that applying the same r_p range and weighting to auto- and cross-correlations makes leading effects cancel in Equation (6). This argument is plausible but not quantitatively tested for the test-sample bias: the reference-independence test in Figure 8 probes only whether the b_r correction works for different reference tracers, not whether the recovered b_t(z) dN/dz amplitude is immune to the scale dependence of the test tracer's bias. Since the single external comparison (Figure 10) is shape-only and the internal validations share the same scale choice, the claim that residual scale-dependent bias is 'empirically small' is not directly supported by the presented tests. I suggest adding an explicit validation in which the same test sample is analyzed with at least two of the five precomputed r_p,min configurations (e.g., 0.5 and 2.0 Mpc/h) and the recovered b(z) dN/dz amplitudes are compared.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The complexity claim 'reducing computational scaling from O(N log N) to O(1)' is imprecise: the inner-product operations in Equation (15) scale with the number of HEALPix pixels and the number of redshift bins, not with the input source number. Consider rephrasing as 'independent of the test and reference sample sizes' or 'O(N_pix) per redshift bin' to avoid a technically misleading statement.
  2. [Figure 10 and Section 4.4] The text notes that the Krolewski et al. (2020) curves were rescaled to the same integrated area as Tomographer, but Figure 10 and the caption would be clearer if they explicitly stated that this rescaling removes all absolute-normalization information, and if possible reported the normalization ratio between the two analyses so that the reader can see the implied amplitude difference.
  3. [Section 4.2] The claim that the five reference-sub-sample measurements 'collapse onto a single consistent track' after the b_r correction is visually supported by Figure 8, but a quantitative statement (e.g., reduced chi-square or maximum fractional deviation between any pair of curves) would strengthen the reference-independence validation, particularly because the plotted curves may have correlated uncertainties.
  4. [Section 2.2, Equation (10)] In Equation (9), the notation \bar{w}'_m = \bar{w}_m / \Delta z assumes that the matter clustering amplitude is diluted inversely with the bin width; this is only an approximation for wide bins. A brief clarifying sentence on when this approximation is valid would help readers apply the tri-band correction in Equation (10).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; validation of the absolute normalization is partly self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, validation against known spectroscopic distributions, building on Eqs. (6)-(10)]
    "Our first validation uses test samples drawn from the SDSS spectroscopic catalogs, for which the true dN/dz(z) and, from their measured auto-correlations, the true b(z) dN/dz(z) are known."

    The 'true' bias-weighted distribution is not an independent external measurement: it is constructed from the same reference auto-correlation and the same theoretical matter anchor wm (Eqs. 9-10) that Tomographer divides by in Eq. (6). A normalization error in wm, in the nonlinear halofit prediction, or in a common estimator normalization cancels exactly between the two sides. The unit-Gaussian residuals in Fig. 7 therefore validate internal consistency and shape recovery, but not the absolute normalization of b(z)dS/dz claimed in Section 6.2. The amplitude check is self-referential.

  2. other [Section 4.5, intensity-mapping mode synthetic map test]
    "Since the previous source-mode validations have already established accurate redshift recovery for resolved objects, the corresponding Tomographer output serves as the reference truth for the intensity-mapping validation."

    Here the 'truth' for the intensity-map test is produced by Tomographer itself from the resolved-source catalog. Comparing the intensity-mode output with this truth demonstrates consistency between the source and intensity modes of the same pipeline, but it does not independently establish that the recovered b(z)dI/dz amplitude is physically correct. Moreover, the only external comparison (Section 4.4) rescales the published curves to Tomographer's integrated area, so it tests shape only. The absolute normalization of b(z)dS/dz therefore has no independent amplitude anchor.

full rationale

The core estimator is not circular: Eq. (6) defines the output b(z)dS/dz as the measured cross-correlation divided by a theoretical matter anchor wm and an empirically measured reference bias br, with the bias degeneracy stated openly in Section 6.1. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the activation-map implementation is an independent computational reformulation of the pair-counting estimators (Section 3.1 and Appendix A). The circularity concern is confined to amplitude validation. In Section 4.1 the 'truth' b(z)dN/dz is built from the same auto-correlations and the same wm used by the estimator, so normalization errors cancel. In Section 4.5 the intensity-map truth is the Tomographer source-mode output itself. The external unWISE comparison (Section 4.4) is explicitly rescaled to Tomographer's integral, making it shape-only. These issues do not undermine the shape, sharp-edge, zero-level, bootstrap-calibration, footprint-split, beam, or foreground tests, nor the computational framework; they mean the absolute normalization of b(z)dS/dz is validated only internally. This is a validation gap and mild self-reference, not a derivation-level circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the standard linear-bias clustering-redshift formalism, on the accuracy of the SDSS reference random catalogs, and on the theoretical matter clustering amplitude. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are analysis choices (scales, weighting index) plus a parametric regularization of the high-redshift reference bias.

free parameters (4)
  • Angular weighting index gamma = -0.8
    Hand-chosen power-law slope of the pair weighting W(theta) = theta^gamma, motivated by the typical shape of w(theta) to maximize signal-to-noise; enters Equations (8) and (14).
  • Minimum projected separation rp,min = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 h^-1 Mpc
    Five precomputed configurations selected automatically from the input beam FWHM; hand-chosen to include small-scale signal while avoiding one-halo and beam effects (Section 3.3).
  • Maximum projected separation rp,max = 10 h^-1 Mpc
    Fixed outer cutoff to avoid wide-angle systematics; enters the matter clustering anchor and activation maps (Section 3.3).
  • High-redshift reference bias regularization fit = not reported
    A parametric curve is fitted to the sparse br(z) measurements at z > 2.5 and used as the reference bias correction; this is an empirical fit to data (Figure 5 caption).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tracer fluctuations are linearly related to the matter density field with a bias that is independent of scale over the adopted rp range (Equation 6).
    This is the fundamental clustering-redshift relation. If scale-dependent bias does not cancel between cross- and auto-correlations, the recovered b(z)dS/dz is biased. The paper discusses this in Section 6.2 but relies on it.
  • standard math Limber approximation and the nonlinear matter power spectrum from CLASS with halofit describe the angular matter clustering wm(z).
    The theoretical anchor wm is computed with these tools; errors in the power spectrum or cosmology propagate into the normalization of b(z)dS/dz (Equation 7).
  • domain assumption Reference random catalogs accurately describe the SDSS selection functions, including the approximate random catalog built for nonLSS quasars.
    Random activation maps encode the survey window and are subtracted in the estimators; inaccuracies bias the correlations, especially at high redshift (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption The test sample has a unique, well-defined redshift distribution across the analysis footprint.
    If the sample is spatially inhomogeneous in redshift, no single dS/dz exists; Section 2.1 states this requirement and Section 4.3 provides diagnostics.
  • domain assumption The chosen scales rp = 0.5 to 10 Mpc/h exclude one-halo and wide-angle contributions while remaining in the quasi-linear regime.
    One-halo clustering breaks the gravitational linear-bias model; the inner cutoff is motivated by halo sizes and beam resolution (Section 3.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tomographer: End-to-end Redshift Distribution Estimation for Source Catalogs and Intensity Maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UD3APBJL

@misc{pith2026260803415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tomographer: End-to-end Redshift Distribution Estimation for Source Catalogs and Intensity Maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UD3APBJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03415}
}
abstract

Redshift information is central to nearly every extragalactic and cosmological application of sky surveys, yet only a small fraction of cataloged sources, and none of the photons forming diffuse backgrounds, have spectroscopic redshifts. Clustering-based redshift inference estimates the redshift distribution of an arbitrary dataset through spatial cross-correlation with a reference sample of known redshifts. It relies only on positional information, making it applicable to any tracer of large-scale structure, including source populations and diffuse intensity maps. Its broader adoption, however, has been limited by technical barriers: assembling and characterizing spectroscopic references, expensive pair-counting computations, theoretical corrections, and systematic control. To remove these barriers, we introduce Tomographer, an end-to-end clustering-redshift framework. The key design feature is a set of precomputed "activation maps" encoding the spatial pair information of 3 million SDSS spectroscopic galaxies and quasars up to $z\sim4$ over $10{,}000\,{\rm deg}^2$. This eliminates user-end pair counting, reducing computational scaling from $O(N\log N)$ to $O(1)$ map multiplications. Given a source catalog or intensity map, Tomographer returns the bias-weighted redshift distribution, $b(z)\,{\rm d}N/{\rm d}z(z)$ or $b(z)\,{\rm d}I/{\rm d}z(z)$. We validate the framework against samples with known redshifts, demonstrate accurate uncertainty estimates, and show robustness to survey footprint, spatially varying selection functions, beam smoothing, and foreground contamination. We showcase applications to source catalogs selected by flux, color, photometric redshift, morphology, or variability, and to intensity maps from radio to X-rays. Future Tomographer releases will incorporate additional wide-field spectroscopic reference samples as they become available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Source-catalog tomography with Tomographer. Each row shows the input sky density map (left) and recovered bias-weighted redshift distribution (right). From top to bottom: (a) magnitude-limited SDSS photometric galaxies, showing the increasing redshift reach with survey depth; (b) morphology-selected local satellite-galaxy candidates from xSAGA, binned by the CNN-assigned probability of being at z < 0.03, with recove… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Intensity-map tomography with Tomographer. Each row shows the input HEALPix intensity map (left) and recovered b (dI/dz) (right). From top to bottom: (a) optical: a synthetic Legacy Surveys z-band integrated-galaxy-light map with added Galactic foregrounds; (b) far-infrared: the Planck 857 GHz map, recovering the CIB tracing the cosmic star formation peaking at z ∼ 1–2; (c) microwave: the ACT-Planck ILC Compton-y ma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of the Tomographer pipeline. Its guiding principle is to minimize user-facing technical barriers and runtime by fixing the reference sample and precomputing as much spatial information as possible. Blue boxes denote the user inputs and outputs: the test sample (a source catalog or intensity map) and the resulting bias-weighted redshift distribution, b (dN/dz) or b (dI/dz). Pink boxes denote precomputed dat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example activation maps for two reference redshift slices, 0.010 < z < 0.021 (left) and 0.657 < z < 0.674 (right). For each slice, we show the data (top) and random (bottom) activation maps together with a zoom-in. Each reference object activates pixels within a fixed …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The SDSS spectroscopic reference sample. Top: surface density of the combined sample over its 10,440 deg2 footprint. Bottom left: redshift distributions of the nine individual subsamples ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scale choices and the matter clustering kernel. Left: the minimum projected separation rp,min used in the correlation measurements as a function of the beam FWHM of the test map. The strategy is to include the small-scale information resolved by the beam while excludin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Validation against samples with known spectroscopic redshift distributions. Top: a composite test sample built from SDSS MAIN galaxies, BOSS CMASS galaxies, and BOSS CORE QSOs, with the QSO sample duplicated by a factor of 10 for compatable normalization. Bottom: a sam…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reference-bias correction. A single broad test sample of DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys sources with mz < 22.5 is analyzed against five different reference subsamples. Left: the raw clustering-redshift measurements, corrected only for w¯m and therefore proportional to br,…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Selection diagnostics and homogeneity tests using Legacy Surveys galaxies selected to an extinction-corrected z￾band magnitude of mz < 22.5. Left: the test sample is split into four equal-area Galactic-latitude zones (inset) and analyzed independently. The recovered re…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: External comparison with a published clustering-redshift analysis. The three unWISE galaxy sam￾ples of Krolewski et al. (2020) (blue, green, red, in order of increasing depth and redshift) are analyzed with To￾mographer (black) and compared to the published cross￾corr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Validation of the intensity-mapping mode with a synthetic IGL map built from the integrated z-band light of Legacy Surveys galaxies down to magnitude 22.5. Top: the input maps—(a) the “truth” z-band IGL at native resolution, (b) the same map smoothed with a 5 ′ beam, …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bias-weighted redshift distributions of the four DESI imaging target classes (BGS, LRG, ELG, and QSO), measured by Tomographer using the imaging catalogs alone. The recovered distributions resolve the sharp LRG cutoff at z ≃ 1.1, the broad low-redshift interloper plat…

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. CIBER $\times$ galaxy cross-correlations reveal a bright, low-redshift NIR background

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First tomographic CIBER×galaxy cross-correlations reveal near-infrared background fluctuations at z<0.6 several times stronger than integrated-galaxy-light model predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    New York University Value-Added Galaxy Catalog: A Galaxy Catalog Based on New Public Surveys. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/429803 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0410166 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Global survey of star clusters in the Milky Way. II. The catalogue of basic parameters. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322302 , archivePrefix =. 1308.5822 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    The 2MASS Large Galaxy Atlas. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/345794 , adsurl =

    doi:10.1086/345794

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    The Gaia mission. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , archivePrefix =. 1609.04153 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    The MCXC: a meta-catalogue of x-ray detected clusters of galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015377 , archivePrefix =. 1007.1916 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 1916

  6. [6]

    Planck 2015 results. XXVI. The Second Planck Catalogue of Compact Sources. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526914 , archivePrefix =. 1507.02058 , primaryClass =

    arXiv 2015

  7. [9]

    , keywords =

    Atacama Cosmology Telescope: High-resolution component-separated maps across one third of the sky. , keywords =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063530 , archivePrefix =. 2307.01258 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  8. [10]

    , keywords =

    Cosmic Star-Formation History. , keywords =. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , archivePrefix =. 1403.0007 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

Show all 152 references
  1. [11]

    Planck 2015 results. VIII. High Frequency Instrument data processing: Calibration and maps. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525820 , archivePrefix =. 1502.01587 , primaryClass =

    2015 arXiv

  2. [12]

    The SAGA Survey. II. Building a Statistical Sample of Satellite Systems around Milky Way-like Galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abce58 , archivePrefix =. 2008.12783 , primaryClass =

    2008 arXiv

  3. [13]

    , keywords =

    LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , archivePrefix =. 0805.2366 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  4. [14]

    The extragalactic content

    Gaia Data Release 3. The extragalactic content. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243232 , archivePrefix =. 2206.05681 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  5. [15]

    , keywords =

    The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical Summary. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/301513 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0006396 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  6. [16]

    , keywords =

    Target Selection and Sample Characterization for the DESI LOW-Z Secondary Target Program. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace902 , archivePrefix =. 2212.07433 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  7. [17]

    Extending the SAGA Survey (xSAGA). I. Satellite Radial Profiles as a Function of Host-galaxy Properties. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4eea , archivePrefix =. 2112.01542 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  8. [18]

    , keywords =

    Target Selection and Validation of DESI Quasars. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2 , archivePrefix =. 2208.08511 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  9. [19]

    , keywords =

    Target Selection and Validation of DESI Emission Line Galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb213 , archivePrefix =. 2208.08513 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  10. [20]

    , keywords =

    Target Selection and Validation of DESI Luminous Red Galaxies. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb , archivePrefix =. 2208.08515 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  11. [21]

    , keywords =

    The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Validation. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 , archivePrefix =. 2208.08512 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  12. [23]

    , keywords =

    All-purpose, all-sky photometric redshifts for the Legacy Imaging Surveys Data Release 8. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac608 , archivePrefix =. 2203.01949 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  13. [27]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , archivePrefix =. 1807.06209 , primaryClass =

    2018 arXiv

  14. [28]

    , keywords =

    HI4PI: A full-sky H I survey based on EBHIS and GASS. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 , archivePrefix =. 1610.06175 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  15. [30]

    , keywords =

    The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: large-scale structure catalogues and measurement of the isotropic BAO between redshift 0.6 and 1.1 for the Emission Line Galaxy Sample. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3336 , archivePrefix =. 2007.0900...

    arXiv

  16. [31]

    , keywords =

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: calibration of lens sample redshift distributions using clustering redshifts with BOSS/eBOSS. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1160 , archivePrefix =. 2012.12826 , primaryClass =

    2012 arXiv

  17. [33]

    , keywords =

    A Full-sky, High-resolution Atlas of Galactic 12 m Dust Emission with WISE. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/5 , archivePrefix =. 1312.0947 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  18. [37]

    , keywords =

    Testing KiDS cross-correlation redshifts with simulations. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038835 , archivePrefix =. 2007.01846 , primaryClass =

    2007 arXiv

  19. [38]

    , keywords =

    The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Large-scale structure catalogues for cosmological analysis. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2416 , archivePrefix =. 2007.09000 , primaryClass =

    2007 arXiv

  20. [39]

    , keywords =

    The Cosmic Thermal History Probed by Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect Tomography. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb403 , archivePrefix =. 2006.14650 , primaryClass =

    2006 arXiv

  21. [40]

    , keywords =

    The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog: Sixteenth Data Release. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aba623 , archivePrefix =. 2007.09001 , primaryClass =

    2007 arXiv

  22. [41]

    , keywords =

    unWISE tomography of Planck CMB lensing. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/047 , archivePrefix =. 1909.07412 , primaryClass =

    2020 arXiv

  23. [42]

    , keywords =

    Broadband Intensity Tomography: Spectral Tagging of the Cosmic UV Background. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b35 , archivePrefix =. 1810.00885 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  24. [43]

    , keywords =

    The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey DR14 quasar sample: first measurement of baryon acoustic oscillations between redshift 0.8 and 2.2. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2630 , archivePrefix =. 1705.06373 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  25. [44]

    , keywords =

    the-wizz: clustering redshift estimation for everyone. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx342 , archivePrefix =. 1609.09085 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  26. [45]

    , keywords =

    The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog: Twelfth data release. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527999 , archivePrefix =. 1608.06483 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  27. [46]

    , keywords =

    SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey Data Release 12: galaxy target selection and large-scale structure catalogues. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2382 , archivePrefix =. 1509.06529 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  28. [47]

    , keywords =

    Clustering of intermediate redshift quasars using the final SDSS III-BOSS sample. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1763 , archivePrefix =. 1507.08380 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  29. [48]

    A 4 per cent distance measure at z = 0.15

    The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample - I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z = 0.15. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv154 , archivePrefix =. 1409.3242 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  30. [49]

    , keywords =

    On using angular cross-correlations to determine source redshift distributions. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt914 , archivePrefix =. 1302.0857 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  31. [50]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Clustering-based redshift estimation: method and application to data. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

  32. [52]

    The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog. V. Seventh Data Release. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2360 , archivePrefix =. 1004.1167 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  33. [53]

    , keywords =

    Calibrating Redshift Distributions beyond Spectroscopic Limits with Cross-Correlations. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/589982 , archivePrefix =. 0805.1409 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  34. [54]

    , keywords =

    Spectroscopic Target Selection in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: The Main Galaxy Sample. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/342343 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0206225 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  35. [55]

    , year = 2013, month = may, volume =

    Recovering redshift distributions with cross-correlations: pushing the boundaries. , year = 2013, month = may, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt410 , archivePrefix =. 1303.0292 , primaryClass =

    2013 arXiv

  36. [56]

    , year = 2015, month = mar, volume =

    Clustering-based redshift estimation: comparison to spectroscopic redshifts. , year = 2015, month = mar, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2636 , archivePrefix =. 1407.7860 , primaryClass =

    2015 arXiv

  37. [57]

    , year = 2016, month = jul, volume =

    Exploring the SDSS photometric galaxies with clustering redshifts. , year = 2016, month = jul, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw981 , archivePrefix =. 1512.03057 , primaryClass =

    2016 arXiv

  38. [58]

    , year = 2016, month = oct, volume =

    Clustering-based redshift estimation: application to VIPERS/CFHTLS. , year = 2016, month = oct, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1500 , archivePrefix =. 1605.05501 , primaryClass =

    2016 arXiv

  39. [59]

    , year = 2018, month = jun, volume =

    Cross-correlation redshift calibration without spectroscopic calibration samples in DES Science Verification Data. , year = 2018, month = jun, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty787 , archivePrefix =. 1710.02517 , primaryClass =

    2018 arXiv

  40. [60]

    , year = 2018, month = jun, volume =

    Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: cross-correlation redshifts - methods and systematics characterization. , year = 2018, month = jun, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty466 , archivePrefix =. 1709.00992 , primaryClass =

    2018 arXiv

  41. [61]

    , year = 2022, month = feb, volume =

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: clustering redshifts - calibration of the weak lensing source redshift distributions with redMaGiC and BOSS/eBOSS. , year = 2022, month = feb, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3311 , archivePrefix =. 2012.08569 , primaryClass =

    2022

  42. [62]

    , year = 2019, month = jan, volume =

    Extragalactic Imprints in Galactic Dust Maps. , year = 2019, month = jan, volume =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4f6 , archivePrefix =. 1808.03294 , primaryClass =

    2019 arXiv

  43. [63]

    , year = 2022, month = aug, volume =

    Photometric Redshifts for Next-Generation Surveys. , year = 2022, month = aug, volume =. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-032122-014611 , archivePrefix =. 2206.13633 , primaryClass =

    2022 arXiv

  44. [64]

    , year = 2010, month = sep, volume =

    Reconstructing Redshift Distributions with Cross-correlations: Tests and an Optimized Recipe. , year = 2010, month = sep, volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/456 , archivePrefix =. 1003.0687 , primaryClass =

    2010 arXiv

  45. [65]

    , year = 2005, month = apr, volume =

    HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere. , year = 2005, month = apr, volume =. doi:10.1086/427976 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0409513 , adsurl =

    2005 arXiv

  46. [66]

    , year = 2019, month = may, volume =

    Overview of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys. , year = 2019, month = may, volume =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d , archivePrefix =. 1804.08657 , primaryClass =

    2019 arXiv

  47. [67]

    , year = 2019, month = feb, volume =

    The unWISE Catalog: Two Billion Infrared Sources from Five Years of WISE Imaging. , year = 2019, month = feb, volume =. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafbea , archivePrefix =. 1901.03337 , primaryClass =

    2019 arXiv

  48. [68]

    arXiv e-prints , year = 2016, month = oct, eid =

    The DESI Experiment Part I: Science, Targeting, and Survey Design. arXiv e-prints , year = 2016, month = oct, eid =

    2016

  49. [69]

    , year = 2005, month = jan, volume =

    The Galaxy Evolution Explorer: A Space Ultraviolet Survey Mission. , year = 2005, month = jan, volume =. doi:10.1086/426387 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0411302 , adsurl =

    2005 arXiv

  50. [70]

    A low-frequency extragalactic catalogue

    GaLactic and Extragalactic All-sky Murchison Widefield Array (GLEAM) survey - I. A low-frequency extragalactic catalogue. , year = 2017, month = jan, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2337 , archivePrefix =. 1610.08318 , primaryClass =

    2017 arXiv

  51. [72]

    , keywords =

    The power spectrum of the thermal Sunyaev─Zeldovich effect. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf709 , archivePrefix =. 2502.10232 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  52. [73]

    Planck 2015 results. XXII. A map of the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. , year = 2016, month = sep, volume =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525826 , archivePrefix =. 1502.01596 , primaryClass =

    2015 arXiv

  53. [74]

    Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. , year = 2020, month = sep, volume =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 , archivePrefix =. 1807.06205 , primaryClass =

    2018 arXiv

  54. [75]

    , keywords =

    Euclid: Photometric redshift calibration performance with the clustering-redshifts technique in the Flagship 2 simulation. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555551 , archivePrefix =. 2505.10416 , primaryClass =

  55. [76]

    , keywords =

    Corrected SFD: A More Accurate Galactic Dust Map with Minimal Extragalactic Contamination. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf4a1 , archivePrefix =. 2306.03926 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  56. [77]

    , keywords =

    Cosmic Infrared Background Tomography and a Census of Cosmic Dust and Star Formation. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb6a , archivePrefix =. 2504.05384 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  57. [79]

    , keywords =

    Full calibration of the tomographic redshift distribution from the HSC PDR3 Shape Catalog with DESI. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/05/073 , archivePrefix =. 2511.18133 , primaryClass =

    2026 arXiv

  58. [80]

    , keywords =

    The Angular Correlation Function of Galaxies from Early Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/342787 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0107417 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  59. [81]

    , keywords =

    KiDS-1000 catalogue: Redshift distributions and their calibration. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039018 , archivePrefix =. 2007.15635 , primaryClass =

    2007 arXiv

  60. [84]

    , keywords =

    Inferring the redshift distribution of the cosmic infrared background. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2275 , archivePrefix =. 1407.0031 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  61. [85]

    , keywords =

    The SDSS galaxy angular two-point correlation function. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt450 , archivePrefix =. 1303.2432 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  62. [86]

    Part II: Approximation schemes

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). Part II: Approximation schemes. , year = 2011, month = jul, volume =. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034 , archivePrefix =. 1104.2933 , primaryClass =

    2011 arXiv

  63. [87]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07923, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07923

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

    2025 doi

  64. [88]

    R., Schlegel , D

    Blanton , M. R., Schlegel , D. J., Strauss , M. A., et al. 2005, , 129, 2562, 10.1086/429803

    2005 doi

  65. [89]

    2011, , 2011, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    Blas , D., Lesgourgues , J., & Tram , T. 2011, , 2011, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    2011 doi

  66. [90]

    Brown , R. A. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1410.5420, 10.48550/arXiv.1410.5420

    2014 doi

  67. [91]

    2022, , 513, 5517, 10.1093/mnras/stac1160

    Cawthon , R., Elvin-Poole , J., Porredon , A., et al. 2022, , 513, 5517, 10.1093/mnras/stac1160

    2022 doi

  68. [92]

    X., et al

    Chan , J.-K., Lan , T.-W., Prochaska , J. X., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.12503, 10.48550/arXiv.2605.12503

    2026 doi arXiv

  69. [93]

    2023, , 944, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    Chaussidon , E., Y \`e che , C., Palanque-Delabrouille , N., et al. 2023, , 944, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c2

    2023 doi

  70. [94]

    2023, , 958, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4a1

    Chiang , Y.-K. 2023, , 958, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4a1

    2023 doi

  71. [95]

    2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 742, 10.1038/s41550-026-02798-6

    ---. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 742, 10.1038/s41550-026-02798-6

    2026 doi

  72. [96]

    2025, , 992, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb6a

    Chiang , Y.-K., Makiya , R., & M \'e nard , B. 2025, , 992, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb6a

    2025 doi

  73. [97]

    2020, , 902, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb403

    Chiang , Y.-K., Makiya , R., M \'e nard , B., & Komatsu , E. 2020, , 902, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb403

    2020 doi

  74. [98]

    2019, , 870, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4f6

    Chiang , Y.-K., & M \'e nard , B. 2019, , 870, 120, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf4f6

    2019 doi

  75. [99]

    2019, , 877, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b35

    Chiang , Y.-K., M \'e nard , B., & Schiminovich , D. 2019, , 877, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b35

    2019 doi

  76. [100]

    Gontcho , S., Seljak , U., et al

    Choppin de Janvry , J., Gontcho A. Gontcho , S., Seljak , U., et al. 2026, , 2026, 073, 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/05/073

    2026 doi

  77. [101]

    J., Scranton , R., Johnston , D., et al

    Connolly , A. J., Scranton , R., Johnston , D., et al. 2002, , 579, 42, 10.1086/342787

    2002 doi

  78. [102]

    S., Duivenvoorden , A

    Coulton , W., Madhavacheril , M. S., Duivenvoorden , A. J., et al. 2024, , 109, 063530, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063530

    2024 doi

  79. [103]

    F., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Darragh-Ford , E., Wu , J. F., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2023, , 954, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace902

    2023 doi

  80. [104]

    2025, , 702, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/202555551

    d'Assignies , W., Manera , M., Padilla , C., et al. 2025, , 702, A155, 10.1051/0004-6361/202555551

    2025 doi

  81. [105]

    2018, , 477, 2196, 10.1093/mnras/sty787

    Davis , C., Gatti , M., Vielzeuf , P., et al. 2018, , 477, 2196, 10.1093/mnras/sty787

    2018 doi

  82. [106]

    Davis , M., & Peebles , P. J. E. 1983, , 267, 465, 10.1086/160884

    1983 doi

  83. [107]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036

    DESI Collaboration , Aghamousa , A., Aguilar , J., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.00036. 1611.00036

    2016 arXiv

  84. [108]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    2019 doi

  85. [109]

    Duncan , K. J. 2022, , 512, 3662, 10.1093/mnras/stac608

    2022 doi

  86. [110]

    2025, , 540, 1055, 10.1093/mnras/staf709

    Efstathiou , G., & McCarthy , F. 2025, , 540, 1055, 10.1093/mnras/staf709

    2025 doi

  87. [111]

    D., White , M., et al

    Eftekharzadeh , S., Myers , A. D., White , M., et al. 2015, , 453, 2779, 10.1093/mnras/stv1763

    2015 doi

  88. [112]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  89. [113]

    Gaia Collaboration , Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Teyssier , D., et al. 2023, , 674, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243232

    2023 doi

  90. [114]

    M., et al

    Gatti , M., Giannini , G., Bernstein , G. M., et al. 2022, , 510, 1223, 10.1093/mnras/stab3311

    2022 doi

  91. [115]

    2018, , 477, 1664, 10.1093/mnras/sty466

    Gatti , M., Vielzeuf , P., Davis , C., et al. 2018, , 477, 1664, 10.1093/mnras/sty466

    2018 doi

  92. [116]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  93. [117]

    J., Ruiz-Macias , O., et al

    Hahn , C., Wilson , M. J., Ruiz-Macias , O., et al. 2023, , 165, 253, 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8

    2023 doi

  94. [118]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  95. [119]

    L., Wright , A

    Hildebrandt , H., van den Busch , J. L., Wright , A. H., et al. 2021, , 647, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039018

    2021 doi

  96. [120]

    R., Hancock , P

    Hurley-Walker , N., Callingham , J. R., Hancock , P. J., et al. 2017, , 464, 1146, 10.1093/mnras/stw2337

    2017 doi

  97. [121]

    M., Tyson , J

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

    2019 doi

  98. [122]

    V., Piskunov , A

    Kharchenko , N. V., Piskunov , A. E., Schilbach , E., R \"o ser , S., & Scholz , R.-D. 2013, , 558, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322302

    2013 doi

  99. [123]

    Kim , D., Jeong , D., Chiang , Y.-K., & Hwang , H. S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.19648, 10.48550/arXiv.2607.19648

    2026 doi arXiv

  100. [124]

    F., & White , M

    Krolewski , A., Ferraro , S., Schlafly , E. F., & White , M. 2020, , 2020, 047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/05/047

    2020 doi

  101. [125]

    J., et al

    Krolewski , A., Dalal , N., Percival , W. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.16297, 10.48550/arXiv.2606.16297

    2026 doi

  102. [126]

    D., & Szalay , A

    Landy , S. D., & Szalay , A. S. 1993, , 412, 64, 10.1086/172900

    1993 doi

  103. [127]

    Limber , D. N. 1953, , 117, 134, 10.1086/145672

    1953 doi

  104. [128]

    Loh , J. M. 2008, , 681, 726, 10.1086/588631

    2008 doi

  105. [129]

    W., Higley , A

    Lyke , B. W., Higley , A. N., McLane , J. N., et al. 2020, , 250, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623

    2020 doi

  106. [130]

    2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau , P., & Dickinson , M. 2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  107. [131]

    Maneewongvatana , S., & Mount , D. M. 1999, arXiv e-prints, cs/9901013, 10.48550/arXiv.cs/9901013

    1999 doi arXiv

  108. [132]

    H., et al

    Mao , Y.-Y., Geha , M., Wechsler , R. H., et al. 2021, , 907, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/abce58

    2021 doi

  109. [133]

    J., & Newman , J

    Matthews , D. J., & Newman , J. A. 2010, , 721, 456, 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/456

    2010 doi

  110. [134]

    2013, , 433, 2857, 10.1093/mnras/stt914

    McQuinn , M., & White , M. 2013, , 433, 2857, 10.1093/mnras/stt914

    2013 doi

  111. [135]

    M., & Finkbeiner , D

    Meisner , A. M., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2014, , 781, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/5

    2014 doi

  112. [136]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.4722

    M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., Schmidt , S., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.4722. 1303.4722

    2013 arXiv

  113. [137]

    B., Hildebrandt , H., Schmidt , S

    Morrison , C. B., Hildebrandt , H., Schmidt , S. J., et al. 2017, , 467, 3576, 10.1093/mnras/stx342

    2017 doi

  114. [138]

    Newman , J. A. 2008, , 684, 88, 10.1086/589982

    2008 doi

  115. [139]

    A., & Gruen , D

    Newman , J. A., & Gruen , D. 2022, , 60, 363, 10.1146/annurev-astro-032122-014611

    2022 doi

  116. [140]

    P., et al

    P \^a ris , I., Petitjean , P., Ross , N. P., et al. 2017, , 597, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527999

    2017 doi

  117. [141]

    W., Pointecouteau , E., & Melin , J.-B

    Piffaretti , R., Arnaud , M., Pratt , G. W., Pointecouteau , E., & Melin , J.-B. 2011, , 534, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015377

    2011 doi

  118. [142]

    2016 a , , 594, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525826

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Arnaud , M., et al. 2016 a , , 594, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525826

    2016 doi

  119. [143]

    Planck Collaboration , Adam , R., Ade , P. A. R., et al. 2016 b , , 594, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525820

    2016 doi

  120. [144]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016 c , , 594, A26, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526914

    2016 doi

  121. [145]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  122. [146]

    J., & Morrison , C

    Rahman , M., M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., Schmidt , S. J., & Morrison , C. B. 2015, , 447, 3500, 10.1093/mnras/stu2636

    2015 doi

  123. [147]

    J., M \'e nard , B., et al

    Rahman , M., Mendez , A. J., M \'e nard , B., et al. 2016, , 460, 163, 10.1093/mnras/stw981

    2016 doi

  124. [148]

    J., et al

    Raichoor , A., de Mattia , A., Ross , A. J., et al. 2021, , 500, 3254, 10.1093/mnras/staa3336

    2021 doi

  125. [149]

    A., et al

    Raichoor , A., Moustakas , J., Newman , J. A., et al. 2023, , 165, 126, 10.3847/1538-3881/acb213

    2023 doi

  126. [150]

    2016, , 455, 1553, 10.1093/mnras/stv2382

    Reid , B., Ho , S., Padmanabhan , N., et al. 2016, , 455, 1553, 10.1093/mnras/stv2382

    2016 doi

  127. [151]

    J., Samushia , L., Howlett , C., et al

    Ross , A. J., Samushia , L., Howlett , C., et al. 2015, , 449, 835, 10.1093/mnras/stv154

    2015 doi

  128. [152]

    J., Bautista , J., Tojeiro , R., et al

    Ross , A. J., Bautista , J., Tojeiro , R., et al. 2020, , 498, 2354, 10.1093/mnras/staa2416

    2020 doi

  129. [153]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15963, 10.48550/arXiv.2512.15963

    Ruggeri , R., Blake , C., Aguilar , J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15963, 10.48550/arXiv.2512.15963

    2025 doi

  130. [154]

    G., et al

    Salcido , J., Yang , T., McCarthy , I. G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.11083, 10.48550/arXiv.2605.11083

    2026 doi arXiv

  131. [155]

    F., Meisner , A

    Schlafly , E. F., Meisner , A. M., & Green , G. M. 2019, , 240, 30, 10.3847/1538-4365/aafbea

    2019 doi

  132. [156]

    J., M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., Morrison , C., & McBride , C

    Schmidt , S. J., M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., Morrison , C., & McBride , C. K. 2013, , 431, 3307, 10.1093/mnras/stt410

    2013 doi

  133. [157]

    J., M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., et al

    Schmidt , S. J., M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., et al. 2015, , 446, 2696, 10.1093/mnras/stu2275

    2015 doi

  134. [158]

    P., Richards , G

    Schneider , D. P., Richards , G. T., Hall , P. B., et al. 2010, , 139, 2360, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2360

    2010 doi

  135. [159]

    R., et al

    Scottez , V., Mellier , Y., Granett , B. R., et al. 2016, , 462, 1683, 10.1093/mnras/stw1500

    2016 doi

  136. [160]

    E., Peacock , J

    Smith , R. E., Peacock , J. A., Jenkins , A., et al. 2003, , 341, 1311, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06503.x

    2003

  137. [161]

    L., Egger , R., Freyberg , M

    Snowden , S. L., Egger , R., Freyberg , M. J., et al. 1997, , 485, 125, 10.1086/304399

    1997 doi

  138. [162]

    A., Weinberg , D

    Strauss , M. A., Weinberg , D. H., Lupton , R. H., et al. 2002, , 124, 1810, 10.1086/342343

    2002 doi

  139. [163]

    L., Hildebrandt , H., Wright , A

    van den Busch , J. L., Hildebrandt , H., Wright , A. H., et al. 2020, , 642, A200, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038835

    2020 doi

  140. [164]

    J., & Dolence , J

    Wang , Y., Brunner , R. J., & Dolence , J. C. 2013, , 432, 1961, 10.1093/mnras/stt450

    2013 doi

  141. [165]

    D., Ross , N

    White , M., Myers , A. D., Ross , N. P., et al. 2012, , 424, 933, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21251.x

    2012

  142. [166]

    F., Peek , J

    Wu , J. F., Peek , J. E. G., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2022, , 927, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4eea

    2022 doi

  143. [167]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579, 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  144. [168]

    A., et al

    Zhou , R., Dey , B., Newman , J. A., et al. 2023, , 165, 58, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca5fb

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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