deletions | additions       diff --git a/reconstructed_wedges.tex b/reconstructed_wedges.tex  index e6c6d05..6dfbaee 100644  --- a/reconstructed_wedges.tex  +++ b/reconstructed_wedges.tex 
...
We clearly see baroynic acoustic signatures in both $\xi_{\perp}$ and $\xi_{||}$ of all three redshift ranges.   The reason that there is no apparent gap as in the pre-reconstruction case, is that the reconstruction procedure corrects for the Kaiser-effect (cite Kaiser) by adding a line-of-sight term correction to $\vec{\psi}$, which envolves   estimating the rate of growth of structure $f$ and linear bias $b$ in Equation 3 of \cite{Kazin_2014}. We also notice in all redshift slices strong negative and positive values at large scales of $\xi_{\perp}$ and $\xi_{||}$. Investigating the WiZCOLA simulation simulations  we conclude that these measurements are consistent with sample variance, due to the limited volumes of the WiggleZ regions. To quantify the significance of detection of the anisotropic baryonic feature in the WiggleZ clustering wedges we compare $\chi^2$ results obtained with best fit models using a $\Lambda$CDM-based template to a ``no-wiggle"-based template, i.e, one with full shape and no baryonic feature \cite{Eisenstein_1998} ($\Delta\chi^2\equiv \chi^2_{\rm min \ no-wiggle}-\chi^2_{\rm min \ \Lambda CDM}$). In this procedure, for each model we vary $H r_{\rm s}$ and $D_{\rm A}/r_{\rm s}$ and marginalize over all other shape parameters, as explained in detail in \S 6.1 of \citet{Kazin_2013}. We find that the significance of detection, defined as $\sqrt{\Delta\chi^2}$, for $\Delta z^{\rm Near}$, $\Delta z^{\rm Mid}$ and $\Delta z^{\rm Far}$ to be $1.6, \ 2.7$ and $2.9$, respectively. Applying our pipeline on the WiZCOLA simulations we find our results consistent with expectations.