Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Generating Dark Matter Subhalo Populations Using Normalizing Flows

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A normalizing flow trained on Galacticus merger trees reproduces dark matter subhalo populations in about two seconds per realization, versus roughly 26,000 seconds for direct simulation, and yields strong-lensing flux-ratio statistics…

desk verdict Useful, plausible emulator for Galacticus subhalo populations, but the population-level sampling recipe is missing and validation does not yet close the gap to lensing statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15468 v2 pith:26326VON submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.GA

Jack Lonergan , Andrew Benson , Daniel Gilman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords normalizingflowsdarkmattersubhalosstronggravitationallensingGalacticussemi-analyticmodelflux-ratioanomaliesapproximateBayesiancomputationemulatorcold
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 sets out to make physically detailed dark matter subhalo populations cheap enough for strong-lensing analyses. It trains a normalizing flow on subhalo realizations from the Galacticus semi-analytic model, then uses the trained flow to draw new populations in about two seconds each, compared with about $2.6\times10^4$ seconds to run Galacticus directly. The paper argues the emulator reproduces the six-dimensional Galacticus parameter distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov distances at most 0.023, KL divergence 0.213, versus 7.511 for the empirical model) and that the resulting lensing flux-ratio summary statistics match both direct Galacticus and the empirical model. The payoff would be that approximate Bayesian analyses of quasar lens systems can use a full semi-analytic treatment of tidal stripping and orbital evolution instead of the simplified empirical model, at no extra computational cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalizing flow: an invertible, differentiable map $F=f_1\circ\cdots\circ f_{12}$ of affine coupling layers that transports a latent distribution to the six-dimensional data distribution of subhalo parameters, with the likelihood computed by the change-of-variables formula. The data vector is normalized before training to $y=(\log_{10}(M_{\rm infall}/M_{\rm host}),\,c,\,\log_{10}(M_{\rm bound}/M_{\rm infall}),\,z_{\rm infall},\,\log_{10}(r_t/R_{\rm vir,host}),\,\log_{10}(r_{\rm 2D}/R_{\rm vir,host}))$ and then shifted into the hypercube $[-1,1]^6$ to avoid numerical instability; after sampling, physical constraints such as $M_{\rm infall}>2\times10^6\,M_\odot$ and $M_{\rm bound}<M_{\rm infall}$ clip the flow output. The flow does the work of replacing the numerical integration of subhalo evolution with a fast draw from the learned joint distribution while preserving the correlations among parameters that matter for lensing.

What would settle it

Run the 300 Galacticus training realizations and an equal number of emulator realizations through the same lensing forward model and compare the cumulative distributions of $S_{\rm lens}$; the fidelity claim would be falsified if the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance between those $S_{\rm lens}$ distributions is comparable to or larger than the difference between Galacticus and the empirical model, because the emulator would then be adding error at the same scale as the physical modeling choices it is meant to replace.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a normalizing flow can serve as a fast, statistically faithful emulator for Galacticus subhalo populations. The flow learns a joint distribution over six normalized subhalo parameters — infall mass, concentration, bound mass, infall redshift, truncation radius, and projected radius — and, after a single training run of about $1.8\times10^4$ seconds on 300 merger trees, draws new realizations in about 2 seconds. Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests against Galacticus give $D_{m,n}\le 0.023$ for all parameters, with the largest discrepancy in concentration, and the Kullback-Leibler divergence between emulator and Galacticus is 0.213 compared with 7.511 between emulator and empirical model. When the emulated populations are fed into the lensing forward model, the flux-ratio histograms and cumulative $S_{\rm lens}$ distributions agree with those from direct Galacticus realizations and are comparable to the empirical model, even though the emulator averages about $1{,}200$ subhalos per realization versus about $23{,}000$ in the empirical model. The paper reads this as evidence that the simplifications in the empirical model do not substantially alter predicted lensing signals under the fiducial cold dark matter model, and that physically based subhalo populations are now practical for approximate Bayesian lensing analyses.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the remaining mismatches between emulator and Galacticus subhalo distributions (largest Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance $D_{m,n}=0.023$, in concentration) are small compared with the order-10% modeling uncertainty already inside Galacticus, so that the emulator's lensing predictions are faithful; the paper quotes that 10% threshold but does not translate the KS distance into a bound on the flux-ratio summary statistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong-lens dark matter analyses can sample millions of subhalo realizations from a semi-analytic model, making approximate Bayesian posterior inference with Galacticus practical rather than infeasible.
  • Systematic differences between the empirical model and Galacticus, such as how tidal stripping depends on orbital history, can be tested directly by running both models on the same lens data.
  • The agreement in flux-ratio and $S_{\rm lens}$ statistics between Galacticus and the empirical model under cold dark matter supports the robustness of previous empirical-model lensing constraints for the fiducial model.
  • A trained emulator produces any number of realizations for the same host halo mass, lens redshift, and dark matter model; exploring new models currently requires retraining, which motivates extending the emulator to conditional normalizing flows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an editorial extension, the emulator's deliberate exclusion of subhalos with bound mass below $10^6\,M_\odot$ is probably harmless for lensing flux ratios, but the same populations should not be reused for observables sensitive to the lowest-mass subhalos without rechecking.
  • The concentration discrepancy concentrates at the sharp minimum-concentration cutoff, suggesting the flow will systematically smooth physical boundaries; a conditional flow conditioned on host mass and redshift would likely reveal where this smoothing matters across different lens systems.
  • If the empirical-versus-Galacticus agreement in $S_{\rm lens}$ persists for warm or self-interacting dark matter, the pipeline becomes a general tool for particle-mass constraints; if it does not, the choice of subhalo population model rather than flow fidelity would become the dominant systematic.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper trains a normalizing flow on subhalo populations extracted from 300 Galacticus merger trees for a single host halo mass and lens redshift, with each subhalo described by six parameters (infall mass, concentration, bound mass, infall redshift, truncation radius, and projected radius). The flow is then used to generate new subhalo populations, which are compared with Galacticus through KS tests, correlation matrices, KL divergence, and flux-ratio histograms from strong lensing simulations. The authors report that the emulator generates a population in about 2 seconds versus about 2.6e4 seconds for direct Galacticus, and they compare Slens summary statistics for the emulator against the empirical model of Gilman et al. (2020). They conclude that the emulator can reproduce Galacticus subhalo populations with sufficient fidelity for lensing analyses and that the empirical model gives comparable lensing results to Galacticus.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work provides a practical route to using physically motivated semi-analytic subhalo populations in ABC strong-lensing analyses, which are currently limited to empirical models because of computational cost. The paper's direct comparisons with Galacticus, the multiple validation metrics, and the explicit discussion of limitations are strengths. However, the population-level sampler is not specified, and the validation is not yet quantitatively tied to the lensing statistic that the method is intended to serve; the paper is therefore a promising contribution whose principal claims require additional specification and validation before the presented evidence supports them.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eqs. (5)–(10); §4.2] The flow is defined on the six-dimensional parameter vector of a single subhalo, but the manuscript never states how a population realization is assembled from flow samples. No equation or paragraph specifies how the number of subhalos N per realization is drawn—whether N is fixed at the training-set mean, sampled from a Poisson or empirical count distribution, or determined by some other rule—nor whether subhalos within a realization are treated as independent. This is load-bearing because the lensing summary statistic Slens (Eq. 15) and its variance and tail depend on N and on rare massive subhalos. Section 4.2 reports only the average N (about 1,200) for the emulator, and Appendix A validates marginal distributions, linear correlations, and KL divergence, but not the joint distribution of all subhalos in a realization. Please specify the count distribution and compare population-level statistics (e.g., the distribution of N, total bound mass, maximum subhalo mass, and the Slens CDF) against Galacticus.
  2. [Figure 7; Appendix A] The lensing validation compares histograms of three flux ratios from 300 Galacticus and 300 emulator populations, but it does not report a statistical comparison of those histograms, nor does it compare the Slens CDFs that enter the ABC analysis. With only 300 realizations, the low-Slens tail shown in Figure 4—the region that determines which realizations most closely match the target data—is too sparsely sampled to support the claim of statistical equivalence. Please compute Slens for the 300 Galacticus and 300 emulator populations and compare their CDFs, or report a two-sample test on Slens, or otherwise justify why flux-ratio histograms are sufficient.
  3. [Appendix A] The statement that residual emulator error is 'small compared to other approximations... at least of order 10%' (citing Nadler et al. 2023) is not tied to the actual validation metrics. A KS distance of 0.023 for concentration and a Frobenius norm of 0.103 for the correlation matrices are descriptive, but the paper gives no calculation of how large a change in Slens would result from these discrepancies. Please provide a quantitative sensitivity test—for example, comparing Slens distributions with and without the observed emulator discrepancies—so the reader can judge whether the emulator error is negligible for the lensing application.
  4. [Data and code availability] No data or code release is mentioned in the manuscript, and the population sampler is unspecified. Because the central claim is about a generative pipeline, readers cannot verify or reproduce the population construction. Please release the trained flow, the training data, and the sampling code, or at minimum provide a precise algorithmic description of the population sampler in the text.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The definition of sigma_i would be clearer with parentheses around the numerator and denominator: sigma_i = (y_i - y_min,i) / (y_max,i - y_min,i).
  2. [Section 5] The sentence beginning 'Current studies estimating mWDM...' is missing a main verb; it should be 'Current studies estimate mWDM ≳ 7 keV...'.
  3. [Section 2.1.2] The text says subhalos are restricted to lie within a '20 kpc annulus', but the condition r2D ≤ 20 kpc describes a disk or circle, not an annulus; please adjust the wording.
  4. [References] Keeley et al. (2024) appears twice (MNRAS 535, 1652 and arXiv:2405.01620); these should be consolidated into a single reference.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption says the histograms were 'composed of 300 subhalo populations'; please clarify whether each histogram aggregates all subhalos across 300 realizations or shows one realization per histogram.
  6. [Table 4] The KL divergence estimates do not state the sample size used for the Pérez-Cruz estimator; please specify the number of points and the number of bootstrap or repeated samples used for the quoted uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the emulator is validated directly against Galacticus, and the empirical-model comparison is an acknowledged consistency check, not a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an emulation claim: a normalizing flow is trained on Galacticus subhalo parameters (Eqs. 5-13) and then evaluated against Galacticus. The validation in Appendix A (KS tests, correlation-matrix Frobenius norm, KL divergence, and flux-ratio histograms) is a direct fit-to-target comparison, not a renamed input. The lensing summary statistic S_lens (Eq. 15) is computed by pyHalo/Samana from sampled subhalo populations, so agreement in flux ratios is a downstream consequence of the sampled subhalo properties rather than an optimized objective; the flow is not trained on S_lens. The agreement with the empirical model is explicitly acknowledged in Section 4.2 as expected because "the empirical model itself was constructed to approximately match the results of Galacticus simulations," so the paper does not present that agreement as independent validation of either model. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation: the Galacticus ground truth is an external code output treated as the training input, and the empirical model is a comparator rather than the training target. The unspecified population-level sampler noted by the skeptic is a completeness or generalization concern, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The central claim rests on treating Galacticus as ground truth, on the six-parameter description being complete for lensing, and on a set of hand-chosen selection cuts and flow hyperparameters. The paper does not introduce new physics; it contributes an emulator, so the ledger mostly records domain assumptions inherited from Galacticus and the empirical model.

free parameters (4)
  • Host halo mass = 10^13.3 M_sun
    Chosen in Section 2.1.2 to match a typical strong lens galaxy; all results are conditional on this value.
  • Lens redshift = z_lens = 0.5
    Chosen in Section 2.1.2 to match typical lens systems; the emulator is trained only for this redshift.
  • Subhalo selection cuts = mass resolution 1e6 M_sun; Minfall > 2e6 M_sun; bound mass in [1e6, 1e9] M_sun; r2D <= 20 kpc
    These cuts define the emulated population in Section 2.2 and the empirical model comparison in Section 4.2; they are choices, not outputs of the model.
  • Normalizing flow hyperparameters = 12 affine coupling layers; 5 dense layers; L2 regularization 0.01; Adam learning rate 0.0001
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.2; the accuracy claims depend on these values but no architecture search or sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Galacticus semi-analytic model accurately captures the subhalo physics relevant to lensing (tidal stripping, heating, dynamical friction).
    The emulator inherits all Galacticus approximations; the paper uses Galacticus as ground truth in Figure 1 and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The six parameters (Minfall, c, Mbound, zinfall, rt, r2D) fully characterize subhalo properties needed for lensing calculations.
    Section 2.2 states these 'together fully characterize the properties of a subhalo that are needed for lensing calculations'; if other correlations matter, the emulator cannot capture them.
  • standard math The normalizing flow change-of-variables formula (Eq. 3) is valid for the chosen affine coupling layers.
    Standard result from Papamakarios et al. 2021; the map is required to be invertible and differentiable.
  • domain assumption Approximate Bayesian Computation with the flux-ratio summary statistic Slens (Eq. 15) is an adequate likelihood approximation.
    The paper uses ABC forward modeling to compare models; this inherits the approximations of Gilman et al. (2020).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generating Dark Matter Subhalo Populations Using Normalizing Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26326VON

@misc{pith2026250415468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generating Dark Matter Subhalo Populations Using Normalizing Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26326VON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15468}
}
read the original abstract

Strong gravitational lensing is a powerful tool for probing the nature of dark matter, as lensing signals are sensitive to the dark matter substructure within the lensing galaxy. We present a comparative analysis of strong gravitational lensing signatures generated by dark matter subhalo populations using two different approaches. The first approach models subhalos using an empirical model, while the second employs the Galacticus semi-analytic model of subhalo evolution. To date, only empirical approaches have been practical in the analysis of lensing systems, as incorporating fully physical models was computationally infeasible. To circumvent this, we utilize a generative machine learning algorithm, known as a normalizing flow, to learn and reproduce the subhalo populations generated by Galacticus. We demonstrate that the normalizing flow algorithm accurately reproduces the Galacticus subhalo distribution while significantly reducing computation time compared to direct simulation. Moreover, we find that subhalo populations from Galacticus produce comparable results to the empirical model in replicating observed lensing signals under the fiducial dark matter model. This work highlights the potential of machine learning techniques in accelerating astrophysical simulations and improving model comparisons of dark matter properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Two dimensional density distributions of normalized subhalo parameter spaces generated from Galacticus (left column) versus the emulator (right column). Yellow regions correspond to regions of higher number density. The parameters y1, . . . , y6 denote the normalized infall masses, concentrations, bound masses, infall redshifts, truncation radii, and projected radii respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Histograms for the three flux ratios are plotted where fi refers to the flux of the ith lensed image. The blue bins depict the distributions of subhalos from the empirical model, the orange bins show the subhalo distributions for the emulator model, and the red bins show flux ratios when the lensing galaxy contains no subhalos. noticeably different from both the empirical and emula￾tor models. This suggests that t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Two dimensional density distributions of flux ratios for the empirical model (left column), emulator model (middle column) and model without substructure (right column). 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Slens 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 F r a c tio n > Sle n s Empirical Emulator 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Slens 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 F r a c tio n > Sle n s Empirical Emulator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Left panel: inverted CDFs of subhalo populations from both the empirical model (black) and the emulator model (red). Right panel: a zoom-in on the left plot for the lowest Slens values. ulator models is the average number of subhalos per realization. On average, the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Distribution of Slens values for the empirical model. The black curve includes subhalos which have infall masses above 106M⊙ and bound masses below 106M⊙. The green curve excludes these halos. plot the Slens distributions for the empirical model in two cases: One ins…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — CDFs of the concentration parameter for both the Galacticus and emulator distributions, zoomed in to the region around the minimum allowed concentration in Galacticus, which is where the maximum discrepancy occurs between distributions. The vertical dashed line repre…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Histograms of flux ratios produced from Galacticus realizations (blue bins) versus Galacticus trained emulator real￾izations (orange bins). Each set of histograms was composed of 300 subhalo populations. between the emulator and empirical distributions (right column)…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    2023, Conditional normalizing flows for IceCube event reconstruction, Tech

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2023, Conditional normalizing flows for IceCube event reconstruction, Tech. rep

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    A., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al

    Ade, P. A., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13

    2016

  4. [4]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6

    2020

  5. [5]

    Bagla, J. S. 2005, Current science, 1088

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Benson, A. J. 2012, New Astronomy, 17, 175

    2012

  7. [7]

    J., & Du, X

    Benson, A. J., & Du, X. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1398

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    J., Lacey , C

    Benson , A. J., Lacey , C. G., Frenk , C. S., Baugh , C. M., & Cole , S. 2004, , 351, 1215, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07870.x

    arXiv 2004

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 599

    Bertschinger, E. 1998, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 36, 599

    1998

  2. [10]

    Bower , R. G. 1991, , 248, 332, 10.1093/mnras/248.2.332

    1991 doi

  3. [11]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 495, 80

    1998

  4. [12]

    S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M

    Bullock, J. S., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2017, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 55, 343

    2017

  5. [13]

    1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 281, 716

    Cole, S., & Lacey, C. 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 281, 716

    1996

  6. [14]

    G., Baugh, C

    Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 319, 168

    2000

  7. [15]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 25

    Dalal, N., & Kochanek, C. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 572, 25

    2002

  8. [16]

    S., & White , S

    Davis , M., Efstathiou , G., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1985, , 292, 371, 10.1086/163168

    1985 doi

  9. [17]

    Dehnen, W., & Read, J. I. 2011, The European Physical Journal Plus, 126, 55

    2011

  10. [18]

    A., & Ng , K

    Dekker , A., Ando , S., Correa , C. A., & Ng , K. C. Y. 2022, , 106, 123026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123026

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 168

    Diemer, B., & Joyce, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 168

    2019

  12. [20]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07728, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07728

    Du , X., Gilman , D., Treu , T., Benson , A., & Gannon , C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.07728, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.07728

    2025 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    A., Macci \`o , A

    Dutton , A. A., Macci \`o , A. V., Frings , J., et al. 2016, , 457, L74, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv193

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, , 490, 962, 10.1093/mnras/stz2613

    Fitts , A., Boylan-Kolchin , M., Bozek , B., et al. 2019, , 490, 962, 10.1093/mnras/stz2613

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    S., White, S

    Frenk, C. S., White, S. D., Efstathiou, G., & Davis, M. 1985, Nature, 317, 595

    1985

  16. [24]

    2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12724

    Friedman, R., & Hassan, S. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12724

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17362

    Gannon, C., Nierenberg, A., Benson, A., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17362

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gilman, D., Birrer, S., Nierenberg, A., & Oh, M. S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 1687

    2024

  19. [27]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 6077

    Gilman, D., Birrer, S., Nierenberg, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 6077

    2020

  20. [28]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 2432

    Gilman, D., Bovy, J., Treu, T., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 2432

    2021

  21. [30]

    S., & Jing, Y

    Han, J., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., & Jing, Y. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 1208

    2016

  22. [31]

    D., Dalal, N., Marrone, D

    Hezaveh, Y. D., Dalal, N., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 37

    2016

  23. [32]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 19

    Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 19

    2013

  24. [33]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 3047

    Hsueh, J.-W., Enzi, W., Vegetti, S., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 3047

    2020

  25. [34]

    Jiang, F., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 657

    2017

  26. [35]

    E., Nierenberg , A

    Keeley , R. E., Nierenberg , A. M., Gilman , D., et al. 2024, , 535, 1652, 10.1093/mnras/stae2458

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    E., Nierenberg, A

    Keeley, R. E., Nierenberg, A. M., Gilman, D., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01620

    2024 arXiv

  28. [37]

    1994, , 271, 676, 10.1093/mnras/271.3.676

    Lacey , C., & Cole , S. 1994, , 271, 676, 10.1093/mnras/271.3.676

    1994 doi

  29. [38]

    2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    Loshchilov, I. 2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101

    2017 arXiv

  30. [39]

    1998, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol

    Makishima, K. 1998, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union, Vol. 188, Cambridge University Press, 181--184

    1998

  31. [40]

    Mikkola, S., & Aarseth, S. J. 1993, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 57, 439

    1993

  32. [41]

    1999, , 524, L19, 10.1086/312287

    Moore , B., Ghigna , S., Governato , F., et al. 1999, , 524, L19, 10.1086/312287

    1999 doi

  33. [42]

    O., Birrer, S., Gilman, D., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Birrer, S., Gilman, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 917, 7

    2021

  34. [43]

    O., Mansfield, P., Wang, Y., et al

    Nadler, E. O., Mansfield, P., Wang, Y., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 159

    2023

  35. [44]

    Navarro, J. F. 1996, in Symposium-international astronomical union, Vol. 171, Cambridge University Press, 255--258

    1996

  36. [45]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02980

    Nguyen, T., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Mishra-Sharma, S., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02980

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2434

    Nierenberg, A., Treu, T., Wright, S., Fassnacht, C., & Auger, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2434

    2014

  38. [47]

    2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10101

    Nierenberg, A., Keeley, R., Sluse, D., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10101

    2023 arXiv

  39. [48]

    J., Mohamed, S., & Lakshminarayanan, B

    Papamakarios, G., Nalisnick, E., Rezende, D. J., Mohamed, S., & Lakshminarayanan, B. 2021, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22, 1

    2021

  40. [49]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 383, 557

    Parkinson, H., Cole, S., & Helly, J. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 383, 557

    2008

  41. [50]

    Peebles, P. J. E. 2020, Principles of physical cosmology (Princeton university press)

    2020

  42. [51]

    2008, in 2008 IEEE international symposium on information theory, IEEE, 1666--1670

    P \'e rez-Cruz, F. 2008, in 2008 IEEE international symposium on information theory, IEEE, 1666--1670

    2008

  43. [52]

    R., Benson, A

    Pullen, A. R., Benson, A. J., & Moustakas, L. A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 24

    2014

  44. [53]

    K., & Tormen , G

    Sheth , R. K., & Tormen , G. 2002, , 329, 61, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04950.x

    2002

  45. [54]

    N., Verde, L., Peiris, H

    Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 148, 175

    2003

  46. [55]

    2008, , 391, 1685, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x

    Springel , V., Wang , J., Vogelsberger , M., et al. 2008, , 391, 1685, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14066.x

    2008

  47. [56]

    E., & Babul , A

    Taylor , J. E., & Babul , A. 2001, , 559, 716, 10.1086/322276

    2001 doi

  48. [57]

    2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 87

    Treu, T. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 87

    2010

  49. [58]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 3598

    Vegetti, S., & Vogelsberger, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 3598

    2014

  50. [59]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00042

    Winkler, C., Worrall, D., Hoogeboom, E., & Welling, M. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00042

    2019 arXiv

  51. [60]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 3189

    Xu, D., Sluse, D., Gao, L., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 3189

    2015

  52. [61]

    J., Pullen, A

    Yang, S., Du, X., Benson, A. J., Pullen, A. R., & Peter, A. H. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3902

    2020

  53. [62]

    J., Zhang , Y., & van den Bosch , F

    Yang , X., Mo , H. J., Zhang , Y., & van den Bosch , F. C. 2011, , 741, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/13

    2011 doi

  54. [63]

    R., Berlind , A

    Zentner , A. R., Berlind , A. A., Bullock , J. S., Kravtsov , A. V., & Wechsler , R. H. 2005, , 624, 505, 10.1086/428898

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.