Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Learning Balanced Field Summaries of the Large-Scale Structure with the Neural Field Scattering Transform

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A scattering transform with trainable neural-field filters beats the fixed Wavelet Scattering Transform on weak lensing maps, improving σ8 and w constraints and posterior density by 16–17%.

desk verdict A plausible but under-quantified first application of the NFST to weak lensing inference, with a useful visualization tool and a central improvement claim that needs significance testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05090 v3 pith:TZJNQJQX submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.CO

Matthew Craigie , Yuan-Sen Ting , Rossana Ruggeri , Tamara M. Davis This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords neuralfieldscatteringtransformwaveletweaklensingcosmologicalparameterinferencesimulation-basedlarge-scalestructuresummarystatisticsCosmoGrid
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 tries to establish that the Neural Field Scattering Transform (NFST), which replaces the fixed Morlet wavelets of the Wavelet Scattering Transform (WST) with trainable filters parameterized by a neural field, captures more cosmologically useful information from weak lensing convergence maps while preserving the scattering architecture's rotational and translational symmetries. Applied to 500 CosmoGrid simulations and evaluated on 2000 held-out maps, the NFST is reported to consistently beat the WST: direct prediction RMSE improves by 6% for $\sigma_8$ and 11% for $w$, with no improvement for $\Omega_m$, and the posterior model assigns higher density to the true parameters (mean log probability 0.47 vs 0.31, a 17% increase in the text's numbers; the abstract states 16%). The CNN baseline does worse than both, supporting the paper's claim that physics-motivated inductive biases beat generic flexibility in a limited-data regime. If true, the NFST offers a way to pull more non-Gaussian information from upcoming large-scale structure surveys without requiring huge simulation training sets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Neural Field Scattering Transform: a two-layer wavelet scattering network whose convolution filters $\hat{\psi}_{jl}(\vec{k}) = F_{jl}(\vec{k}, j)$ are generated by a small neural network mapping Fourier-space coordinates and the scale index $j$ to filter values, with Fourier-space truncation at $N/2^j$ and trivial dilation and rotation operations to build the full filter bank. The scattering coefficients are first-order $S^1_{jl} = \langle |\delta \star \psi_{jl}| \rangle$ and second-order $S^2_{j_1 l_1 j_2 l_2} = \langle ||\delta \star \psi_{j_1 l_1}| \star \psi_{j_2 l_2}| \rangle$, with angular averaging over $\Delta\ell$ to preserve rotational symmetry. What carries the argument is the combination: the fixed WST architecture supplies symmetry inductive biases and data efficiency, while the neural-field parameterization supplies smooth, task-adapted filters; a dual-domain (real- and Fourier-space U-Net) field-maximization procedure makes the learned second-order coefficients interpretable in physical space.

What would settle it

Re-run the same pipeline on the same CosmoGrid split with many more training repeats (for example, 50) and compute a bootstrap or paired confidence interval on the NFST-minus-WST difference in mean log probability and in RMSE; if the interval includes zero for $\sigma_8$ or $w$, the claimed consistent outperformance would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that inserting a smooth, trainable neural field into the scattering transform's Fourier-space filters yields a summary statistic that is both flexible and robust enough to outperform a fixed WST when trained on only 500 simulations. The learned filters spontaneously widen their frequency pass bands compared with Morlet wavelets, indicating that for cosmology the information gain comes from averaging over more angular modes rather than from sharp directional resolution. The most cosmologically informative coefficient is the second-order term coupling the two smallest scales ($j_1=1$, $j_2=2$, $\Delta\ell=0$), i.e., sub-structure clustering deep in the non-linear regime; the paper's new coefficient-maximization visualization shows the NFST's version of this coefficient captures more filament-like structure than the WST's. The paper also finds no improvement over the WST for $\Omega_m$, suggesting the WST already captures the matter-density information.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains (6% for $\sigma_8$, 11% for $w$, and the 16–17% posterior-density improvement) are larger than the run-to-run training scatter, since the paper averages ten repeats without reporting error bars or significance tests on these percentages.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The NFST extracts additional non-Gaussian information from the small, non-linear scales of weak lensing fields, tightening $\sigma_8$ and $w$ constraints without needing more training simulations than a fixed WST.
  • The learned filters' wider pass bands imply that wavelet-based summaries for cosmology should prioritize broad frequency coverage and angular averaging over precise directional resolution.
  • The CNN's underperformance relative to both scattering transforms supports the claim that symmetry-based inductive biases are a more effective regularizer than generic dropout in data-limited cosmological inference.
  • The new summary-statistic visualization method can be applied to any field statistic, providing a physical-space check of what the statistic measures and helping validate deep-learning-based summaries.
  • The two-stage freeze-then-train procedure (pre-train, freeze, then fit a lightweight regressor and posterior model) is presented as a compute-efficient alternative to end-to-end training that retains or improves performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because only $\sigma_8$ and $w$ improve and $\Omega_m$ does not, the NFST's advantage is concentrated in parameters most sensitive to non-linear structure formation; this predicts the margin widens for surveys probing smaller scales or higher redshifts.
  • The widened-filter result suggests a cheap design principle: a fixed scattering transform with hand-tuned wider band-pass filters might capture part of the NFST's gain at zero training cost, though likely not all of it.
  • The new coefficient-visualization method could be pointed at noise and systematics: maximizing a coefficient on fields with added survey masks or shear noise would reveal whether the statistic's information content is robust or contamination-driven.
  • If the NFST generalizes to 3D galaxy surveys as the authors propose, its symmetry-constrained flexibility may soften the simulation-volume bottleneck, but the noiseless, mask-free setup of this test means the reported margins are an upper bound on what observational data would deliver.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the Neural Field Scattering Transform (NFST) as a learned summary statistic for weak lensing convergence maps and benchmarks it against the fixed Wavelet Scattering Transform (WST) and a CNN baseline. The NFST replaces Morlet wavelets with neural-field-parameterized filters, is pre-trained on the training cosmologies, then frozen; the resulting 64 coefficients are used both for direct MLP regression of Omega_m, sigma_8, and w and for Masked Autoregressive Flow posterior estimation. On 2000 held-out CosmoGrid cosmologies, averaged over 10 repeats, the authors report a 6% RMSE improvement for sigma_8 and 11% for w over WST, a 17% (abstract: 16%) higher average posterior density, and worse CNN performance. The paper also introduces a coefficient-maximization visualization to interpret learned filters and generated fields.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the NFST offers a data-efficient middle ground between fixed scattering transforms and flexible CNNs, and the visualization method has independent utility as an interpretability tool for differentiable summary statistics. Strengths include a large disjoint test set (2000 cosmologies), repeated training runs, explicit comparison to an external WST benchmark, and physically motivated inductive biases. The main weaknesses are statistical: no error bars, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests are reported for the headline improvements, and the repeat protocol does not state whether the filter-learning step is repeated. These issues are fixable but currently prevent the word "consistently" from being justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Figure 1] The headline numbers (6% for sigma_8, 11% for w, and 17% posterior density increase) are averages over 10 runs, but the manuscript reports no measure of run-to-run variability. Figure 1 shows individual runs with large, skewed or bimodal scatter, and the text itself concedes this spread. Without paired-difference statistics, the reported improvements may be within stochastic noise. Please report per-run values, standard deviations or bootstrap confidence intervals, and a paired test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) for NFST versus WST and versus CNN.
  2. [Sections II.C.1-II.C.3] It is unclear whether the 10 repeats apply to the full pipeline, including NFST and CNN pre-training and filter learning, or only to the downstream MLP and MAF training. The pre-training step in II.C.1 is described as a single procedure, while the repeats are mentioned only in II.C.2 and II.C.3. Since the learned filters are the novel component, this ambiguity determines what the scatter in Figure 1 represents. Please clarify the repeat protocol; if only the downstream training was repeated, repeat the full pipeline or explicitly state this limitation.
  3. [Section V versus Section III.A] The conclusion restates the central quantitative claims with numbers (15% and 17% RMSE improvement for sigma_8 and w, and a 33% posterior improvement) that do not appear in Section III.A, which reports 6% for sigma_8, 11% for w, and a 14% CNN deficit. If the conclusion's numbers are relative to the CNN rather than the WST, the baseline must be stated explicitly; as written, the two sections appear contradictory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section III.A] The abstract states a 16% increase in posterior density while Section III.A and the conclusion state 17%; please unify the number.
  2. [Section III.A] There is a typo: "over the the WST" should read "over the WST."
  3. [Section II.B.2] The notation N/2^j for Fourier-space truncation should clarify whether j is zero-indexed; the three scales are described later as approximately 8, 16, and 32 arcmin, so a concrete example would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Section II.C.3] The flat prior is stated on normalized parameters in [-5,5]; please state the normalization used for the physical parameters so the prior is reproducible.
  5. [Figure 1] Adding error bars or shaded regions to the averages, or at least a table of per-run values, would make the central comparison easier to assess; the current figure shows only point markers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NFST-vs-WST improvements are out-of-sample results on a disjoint test set, and the sole self-citation supplies the method rather than the performance claim.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmark: NFST filters are pre-trained on 400 training cosmologies, frozen, and then evaluated against a fixed WST on 2,000 held-out test cosmologies (Section II.A: 'The remaining 2000 are used as a test set to benchmark each summary statistic's performance'). Because the test set is disjoint from the data used to train both the filters and the downstream regressors/NPE, the reported 6% (sigma_8), 11% (w), and 17% posterior-density improvements are genuine out-of-sample comparisons rather than quantities forced by construction. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input: the NFST coefficients are deterministic functions of the frozen filters, and the WST comparison is external. The only self-citation is [31], which is used to supply the NFST architecture and implementation details and to note prior success on a different task; it is not load-bearing evidence for the present cosmology improvements. The absence of error bars on the 10 repeats is a statistical-significance concern, not a circularity, and the 16% vs 17% abstract/text discrepancy is a reporting inconsistency. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted, and the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its benchmark.

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

The central claim is empirical rather than mathematical: it rests on trained models and a chosen simulation suite. The main free parameters are the learned model weights and selected hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • NFST neural field filter weights = trained on 400 CosmoGrid cosmologies
    The NFST's filters are learned from the training set to predict cosmology parameters, and the claimed improvement over WST depends on these learned filters.
  • MLP regression weights = trained on 64 coefficients from each summary statistic
    Used for direct parameter prediction; the RMSE comparisons are based on the MLP's predictions.
  • MAF density estimator parameters = hidden features=64, num transforms=8
    The posterior quality metric (mean log probability) depends on this chosen NPE model; hyperparameters are selected via grid search without explicit held-out validation.
  • Training hyperparameters (learning rates, epochs, dropout) = lr=1e-3/1e-4, epochs 300/500/2000, dropout rates unspecified
    Chosen by hand; no sensitivity analysis is shown.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CosmoGrid simulations accurately model the weak lensing convergence field, including baryonic feedback via baryonification
    Invoked in Section II.A; the analysis uses these simulated maps as ground truth. If the simulations are unrealistic, the relative comparison may not transfer to observations.
  • domain assumption The scattering transform configuration with J=3 scales and L=6 angles captures the cosmology-relevant information in the field
    This is the fixed design in Section II.B.1; both WST and NFST use it. The choice of scales is stated as a trade-off, but its adequacy is not tested.
  • ad hoc to paper The neural field parameterization with 64 neurons provides sufficient flexibility while preserving filter smoothness
    The architecture is introduced in the authors' prior work and used here without a sensitivity study; the claimed robustness depends on this inductive bias.
  • standard math Mean log probability over the 2000 test pairs is a reliable metric for comparing posterior quality
    This is a standard metric in simulation-based inference, but it is interpreted as a percentage increase in density via exponentiation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Balanced Field Summaries of the Large-Scale Structure with the Neural Field Scattering Transform." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZJNQJQX

@misc{pith2026250605090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Balanced Field Summaries of the Large-Scale Structure with the Neural Field Scattering Transform},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZJNQJQX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05090}
}
abstract

We present a cosmology analysis of simulated weak lensing convergence maps using the Neural Field Scattering Transform (NFST) to constrain cosmological parameters. The NFST extends the Wavelet Scattering Transform (WST) by incorporating trainable neural field filters while preserving rotational and translational symmetries. This setup balances flexibility with robustness, ideal for learning in limited training data regimes. We apply the NFST to 500 simulations from the CosmoGrid suite, each providing a total of 1000 square degrees of noiseless weak lensing convergence maps. We use the resulting learned field compression to model the posterior over $\Omega_m$, $\sigma_8$, and $w$ in a $w$CDM cosmology. The NFST consistently outperforms the WST benchmark, achieving a 16% increase in the average posterior probability density assigned to test data. Further, the NFST improves direct parameter prediction precision on $\sigma_8$ by 6% and $w$ by 11%. We also introduce a new visualization technique to interpret the learned filters in physical space and show that the NFST adapts its feature extraction to capture task-specific information. These results establish the NFST as a promising tool for extracting maximal cosmological information from the non-Gaussian information in upcoming large-scale structure surveys, without requiring large simulated training datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the WST (red squares), NFST (blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The first angular filter of the WST (top row) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Generated fields representing the information probed by a selected second order scattering coefficient for the WST [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Wavelet Scattering Transform The standard Wavelet Scattering Transform (WST) extracts information from homogeneous fields by ap- plying convolution filtering across a set of complex wavelet filters with different scales and orientations. The method convolves the input fieldδwith filtersψ jl (indexed by scalejand anglel) and computes scattering 3 coeff...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The filters are parameterized as ˆψjl(⃗k) =F jl(⃗k, j), whereFjl is a neu- ral network that maps Fourier-space coordinates ⃗kto filter values

    The Neural Field Scattering Transform The Neural Field Scattering Transform (NFST) ex- tends the WST by replacing fixed Morlet wavelet filters with trainable neural field filters [31]. The filters are parameterized as ˆψjl(⃗k) =F jl(⃗k, j), whereFjl is a neu- ral network that maps Fourier-space coordinates ⃗kto filter values. Filters learn directly in Fou...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Convolutional Neural Network Compression Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are a popu- lar class of deep learning architectures that extract spa- tial features from 2D images by convolving the input with a series of learnable filters. Unlike the WST and NFST, which incorporate symmetry constraints explic- itly, CNNs learn their features purely from dat...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Summary Statistic Pre-Training: Use raw lensing fields to predict cosmology parameters with the NFST and CNN models. Then, freeze the models’ trainable parameters such that they behave deter- ministic summary statistics rather than trainable models, and compute the corresponding set of co- efficients for each

    work page

  5. [5]

    Direct Parameter Prediction: Use explicit coeffi- cients to directly predict cosmology parameters

    work page

  6. [6]

    Posterior Modeling: Use predicted cosmology pa- rameters to construct a posterior probability den- sity model

    work page

  7. [7]

    To treat each summary statistic equally in the downstream analysis, we choose to pre-train the NFST and CNN summary statistics and freeze their trainable components

    Summary Statistic Pre-Training The NFST and CNN models contain trainable pa- rameters that are tuned throughout training, while the WST model is fixed and deterministic. To treat each summary statistic equally in the downstream analysis, we choose to pre-train the NFST and CNN summary statistics and freeze their trainable components. Each model then acts ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    We use the same MLP model and training setup as with pre-training, but in- stead train for 2000 epochs with a learning rate of 10−4

    Direct Parameter Prediction We next train a regression model to predict the re- spective cosmology parameters from each of the sum- mary statistics’ coefficient sets, again by minimizing the mean-squared error loss. We use the same MLP model and training setup as with pre-training, but in- stead train for 2000 epochs with a learning rate of 10−4. After tr...

    work page 2000

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    To cap- ture these, we instead use Neural Posterior Estimation (NPE)

    Posterior Modeling While predicting cosmology parameters directly is a useful indicator of summary statistic constraining power, it fails to capture the uncertainty in predic- tions and any degeneracies between parameters. To cap- ture these, we instead use Neural Posterior Es...

    2000

  2. [10]

    We expand upon work from [40], which visualizes the information that an arbitrary summary statistic captures from a tar- get field

    Summary Statistic-Based Field Maximization This new method for visualizing summary statistics relies on maximizing their value in a field. We expand upon work from [40], which visualizes the information that an arbitrary summary statistic captures from a tar- get field. It wor...

  3. [11]

    NFST Coefficient Visualization Using this new framework, we compare the NFST co- efficient with the most influence on cosmology to its 8 WST counterpart. To identify the most influential coefficients, we use the Shapley Additive Explanation (SHAP) framework, which explains the...

  4. [12]

    The hubble constant tension: cur- rent status and future perspectives through new cos- mological probes,

    M. Dainotti, B. D. Simone, G. Montani, T. Schiavone, and G. Lambiase, “The hubble constant tension: cur- rent status and future perspectives through new cos- mological probes,” (2023), arXiv:2301.10572 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Camilleri, T

    R. Camilleri, T. M. Davis, M. Vincenzi, P. Shah, J. Frie- man, R. Kessler, P. Armstrong, D. Brout, A. Carr, R. Chen, L. Galbany, K. Glazebrook, S. R. Hinton, J. Lee, C. Lidman, A. M¨ oller, B. Popovic, H. Qu, M. Sako, D. Scolnic, M. Smith, M. Sullivan, B. O. S´ anchez, G. Tayl...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    DES Collaboration, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, P. Armstrong, J. Asorey, S. Avila, D. Bacon, B. A. Bassett, K. Bechtol, P. H. Bernardinelli, G. M. Bernstein, E. Bertin, J. Blazek, S. Bocquet, D....

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The ups and downs of early dark energy solutions to the hubble ten- sion: a review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023,

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, and T. Karwal, “The ups and downs of early dark energy solutions to the hubble ten- sion: a review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023,” (2023), arXiv:2302.09032 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. An- drade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Be- hera, S. BenZvi, A. Bera, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, S. ...

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Full-shape analysis of the power spectrum and bispectrum of desi dr1 lrg and qso samples,

    S. N. Masot, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, L. Verde, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Bailey, S. BenZvi, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, A. C. Rosell, E. Chaussidon, T. Clay- baugh, S. Cole, A. Cuceu, K. S. Dawson, A. de la Ma- corra, R. Demina, A. Dey, B. Dey, P. Doel, S. Ferraro, A. Font...

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Secco, S

    L. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M. Raveri, A. Campos, A. Amon, A. Chen, C. Doux, A. Choi, D. Gruen, G. Bernstein, C. Chang, J. DeRose, J. Myles, A. Fert´ e, P. Lemos, D. Huterer, J. Prat, M. Troxel, N. MacCrann, A. Liddle, T. Kacprzak, X. Fang, C. S´ anch...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Asgari, C.-A

    M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi, B. Giblin, C. Hey- mans, H. Hildebrandt, A. Kannawadi, B. St¨ olzner, T. Tr¨ oster, J. L. van den Busch, A. H. Wright, M. Bil- icki, C. Blake, J. de Jong, A. Dvornik, T. Erben, F. Get- man, H. Hoekstra, F. K¨ ohlinger, K. Kuijken, L. Miller, ...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Hamana, M

    T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, S. Miyazaki, C. Hik- age, M. Oguri, S. More, R. Armstrong, A. Leau- thaud, R. Mandelbaum, H. Miyatake, A. J. Nishizawa, M. Simet, M. Takada, H. Aihara, J. Bosch, Y. Komiyama, R. Lupton, H. Murayama, M. A. Strauss, and M. Tanaka, Publications of the Ast...

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Abbott, M

    T. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. Avila, D. Bacon, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol, M. Becker, G. Bern- stein, S. Bhargava, S. Birrer, J. Blazek, A. Brandao- Souza, S. Bridle, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, D. Burke, H. Camacho...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Heymans, T

    C. Heymans, T. Tr¨ oster, M. Asgari, C. Blake, H. Hilde- brandt, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, C.-A. Lin, A. G. 12 S´ anchez, J. L. van den Busch, A. H. Wright, A. Amon, M. Bilicki, J. de Jong, M. Crocce, A. Dvornik, T. Erben, M. C. Fortuna, F. Getman, B. Giblin, K. Glazebrook, H. ...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Measurements of clustering of sdss-boss galax- ies, galaxy-galaxy lensing and cosmic shear,

    S. More, S. Sugiyama, H. Miyatake, M. M. Rau, M. Shirasaki, X. Li, A. J. Nishizawa, K. Osato, T. Zhang, M. Takada, T. Hamana, R. Takahashi, R. Dalal, R. Mandelbaum, M. A. Strauss, Y. Kobayashi, T. Nishimichi, M. Oguri, W. Luo, A. Kannawadi, B.-C. Hsieh, R. Armstrong, J. Bosch,...

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gil-Mar ´ ın, J

    H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, J. Nore˜ na, L. Verde, W. J. Percival, C. Wagner, M. Manera, and D. P. Schneider, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society451, 539–580 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Gil-Mar ´ ın, W

    H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, W. J. Percival, L. Verde, J. R. Brownstein, C.-H. Chuang, F.-S. Kitaura, S. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Torres, and M. D. Olmstead, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society465, 1757 (2016), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/465/2/1757/8364690/stw2679.pdf

    2016

  18. [26]

    Slepian, D

    Z. Slepian, D. J. Eisenstein, F. Beutler, C.-H. Chuang, A. J. Cuesta, J. Ge, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, S. Ho, F.-S. Ki- taura, C. K. McBride, R. C. Nichol, W. J. Percival, S. Rodr ´ ıguez-Torres, A. J. Ross, R. Scoccimarro, H.-J. Seo, J. Tinker, R. Tojeiro, and M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, Mont...

    2017

  19. [27]

    A first detection of the connected 4-point correlation func- tion of galaxies using the boss cmass sample,

    O. H. E. Philcox, J. Hou, and Z. Slepian, “A first detection of the connected 4-point correlation func- tion of galaxies using the boss cmass sample,” (2021), arXiv:2108.01670 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. Philcox, T. Nishimichi, M. Si- monovi´ c, M. Takada, and M. Zaldarriaga, Physical Re- view D105(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.063512

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Bispectrum con- straints on primordial non-gaussianities with the eboss dr16 quasars,

    M. S. Cagliari, M. Barberi-Squarotti, K. Pardede, E. Castorina, and G. D’Amico, “Bispectrum con- straints on primordial non-gaussianities with the eboss dr16 quasars,” (2025), arXiv:2502.14758 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yankelevich and C

    V. Yankelevich and C. Porciani, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.483, 2078 (2019), arXiv:1807.07076 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. Oddo, E. Sefusatti, C. Porciani, P. Monaco, and A. G. S´ anchez, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020, 056–056 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Win- dow convolution of the galaxy clustering bispectrum,

    M. S. Wang, F. Beutler, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, T. Claybaugh, A. de la Macorra, P. Doel, A. Font-Ribera, E. Gazta˜ naga, G. Gutier- rez, K. Honscheid, C. Howlett, D. Kirkby, A. Lambert, M. Landriau, R. Miquel, G. Niz, F. Prada, I. P´ erez- R` afols, G. Ros...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fluri, T

    J. Fluri, T. Kacprzak, A. Lucchi, A. Refregier, A. Amara, T. Hofmann, and A. Schneider, Physical Review D100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.063514

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Dark energy survey year 3 results: likelihood-free, simulation-basedwcdm inference with neural compression of weak-lensing map statistics,

    N. Jeffrey, L. Whiteway, M. Gatti, J. Williamson, J. Als- ing, A. Porredon, J. Prat, C. Doux, B. Jain, C. Chang, T. Y. Cheng, T. Kacprzak, P. Lemos, A. Alarcon, A. Amon, K. Bechtol, M. R. Becker, G. M. Bernstein, A. Campos, A. C. Rosell, R. Chen, A. Choi, J. DeRose, A. Drlica-...

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lemos, L

    P. Lemos, L. Parker, C. Hahn, S. Ho, M. Eickenberg, J. Hou, E. Massara, C. Modi, A. M. Dizgah, B. R.- S. Blancard, D. Spergel, and SimBIG Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D109, 083536 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Domain adaptive graph neural networks for constraining cosmo- logical parameters across multiple data sets,

    A. Roncoli, A. ´Ciprijanovi´ c, M. Voetberg, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, and B. Nord, “Domain adaptive graph neural networks for constraining cosmo- logical parameters across multiple data sets,” (2024), arXiv:2311.01588 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Valogiannis and C

    G. Valogiannis and C. Dvorkin, (2022), 10.48550/ARXIV.2204.13717

    2022 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Valogiannis and C

    G. Valogiannis and C. Dvorkin, Physical Review D105 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.103534

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Precise cos- mological constraints from boss galaxy clustering with a simulation-based emulator of the wavelet scattering transform,

    G. Valogiannis, S. Yuan, and C. Dvorkin, “Precise cos- mological constraints from boss galaxy clustering with a simulation-based emulator of the wavelet scattering transform,” (2024), arXiv:2310.16116 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Parametric scattering networks,

    S. Gauthier, B. Th´ erien, L. Als` ene-Racicot, M. Chaud- hary, I. Rish, E. Belilovsky, M. Eickenberg, and G. Wolf, “Parametric scattering networks,” (2022), arXiv:2107.09539 [cs.LG]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Khemani, M

    V. Khemani, M. H. Azarian, and M. G. Pecht, Elec- tronics11(2022), 10.3390/electronics11030451

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Craigie, P

    M. Craigie, P. L. Taylor, Y.-S. Ting, C. Cuesta- Lazaro, R. Ruggeri, and T. M. Davis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13083 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kuijken, C

    K. Kuijken, C. Heymans, A. Dvornik, H. Hildebrandt, J. T. A. de Jong, A. H. Wright, T. Erben, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin, H.-Y. Shan, F. Getman, A. Grado, H. Hoek- stra, L. Miller, N. Napolitano, M. Paolilo, M. Radovich, P. Schneider, W. Sutherland, M. Tewes, C. Tortora, E. A. Vale...

    2019

  36. [44]

    Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J

    Euclid Collaboration, Y. Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J. A. Acevedo Barroso, A. Ach´ ucarro, J. Adamek, R. Adam, G. E. Addison, N. Aghanim, M. Aguena, V. Ajani, Y. Akrami, A. Al-Bahlawan, A. Alavi, I. S. Albu- querque, G. Alestas, G. Alguero, A. Allaoui, S. W. 13 Allen, V. Allevato, A...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Ivezi´ c, S

    ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, S. M. Kahn, J. A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman, D. Alonso, Y. AlSayyad, S. F. Anderson, J. Andrew, J. R. P. Angel, G. Z. Angeli, R. Ansari, P. Antilogus, C. Araujo, R. Armstrong, K. T. Arndt, P. Astier, ´E. Aubourg, N. Auza, T. S. Axelrod, D. J. Bard, J....

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cheng and B

    S. Cheng and B. M´ enard, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society507, 1012 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Cranmer, J

    K. Cranmer, J. Brehmer, and G. Louppe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 30055 (2020), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Tejero-Cantero, J

    A. Tejero-Cantero, J. Boelts, M. Deistler, J.-M. Lueck- mann, C. Durkan, P. J. Gon¸ calves, D. S. Greenberg, and J. H. Macke, Journal of Open Source Software5, 2505 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation,

    G. Papamakarios, T. Pavlakou, and I. Murray, “Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation,” (2018), arXiv:1705.07057 [stat.ML]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Benchmarking simulation-based inference,

    J.-M. Lueckmann, J. Boelts, D. S. Greenberg, P. J. Gon¸ calves, and J. H. Macke, “Benchmarking simulation-based inference,” (2021), arXiv:2101.04653 [stat.ML]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cheng and B

    S. Cheng and B. M´ enard, (2021), 10.48550/ARXIV.2112.01288

    2021 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Erhan, Y

    D. Erhan, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, and P. Vincent,Vi- sualizing higher-layer features of a deep network, Tech. Rep. 4323 (Universit´ e de Montr´ eal, Dept. IRO, 2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks,

    M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus, “Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks,” (2013), arXiv:1311.2901 [cs.CV]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Understanding neural networks through deep vi- sualization,

    J. Yosinski, J. Clune, A. Nguyen, T. Fuchs, and H. Lip- son, “Understanding neural networks through deep vi- sualization,” (2015), arXiv:1506.06579 [cs.CV]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A unified approach to inter- preting model predictions,

    S. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to inter- preting model predictions,” (2017), arXiv:1705.07874 14 [cs.AI]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    N. S. de Santi, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, L. Raul Abramo, H. Shao, L. A. Perez, T. Castro, Y. Ni, C. C. Lovell, E. Hern´ andez-Mart ´ ınez, F. Marinacci, D. N. Spergel, K. Dolag, L. Hernquist, and M. Vogelsberger, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 082 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.