pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2510.18749 · v1 · submitted 2025-10-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.IM· cs.LG· cs.NE

Symbolic Emulators for Cosmology: Accelerating Cosmological Analyses Without Sacrificing Precision

Deaglan J. Bartlett , Shivam Pandey This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 04:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMcs.LGcs.NE
keywords symbolic emulatorscosmologyLambda CDMcomoving distancelinear growth factorhypergeometric functions3x2pt analysisDark Energy Survey
0
0 comments X

The pith

Symbolic approximations to hypergeometric functions achieve 0.001 percent accuracy for cosmological distance and growth calculations.

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

The paper develops symbolic approximations to the hypergeometric functions used for the comoving distance and linear growth factor in flat Lambda CDM cosmology. These approximations reach better than 0.001 percent accuracy for the distance and 0.05 percent accuracy for the growth factor across all redshifts when the matter density lies between 0.1 and 0.5. Substituting the approximations into a full 3x2pt analysis modeled on the Dark Energy Survey produces cosmological parameter constraints that match those from standard numerical methods. The work targets the repeated evaluations required during likelihood-based inference, where faster methods can reduce the overall computational cost of fitting models to survey data.

Core claim

The central claim is that simple symbolic approximations to the hypergeometric functions for the Lambda CDM comoving distance and linear growth factor reach the accuracy levels needed for current surveys and, when inserted into a complete 3x2pt likelihood pipeline, leave the recovered cosmological parameters unchanged relative to exact numerical evaluation.

What carries the argument

Symbolic approximations to the hypergeometric functions that appear in the expressions for comoving distance and linear growth factor.

If this is right

  • Cosmological parameter inference runs faster and uses substantially less memory than numerical integration.
  • The approximations support efficient exploration of parameter spaces in large-scale structure analyses such as those from DES.
  • The resulting constraints on cosmological parameters stay statistically consistent with those from full numerical methods.
  • The stated accuracy holds for all redshifts and for matter densities between 0.1 and 0.5.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar symbolic approximations could be constructed for other cosmological observables or for models that allow dark energy or curvature to vary.
  • Embedding these emulators in existing analysis pipelines would lower the runtime barrier for including more nuisance parameters or systematics.
  • The approach might combine with other fast methods to enable broader scans over extended cosmological models.

Load-bearing premise

The symbolic approximations remain accurate enough when the model is extended beyond flat Lambda CDM to include varying dark energy, curvature, or neutrino mass and when the full likelihood incorporates all nuisance parameters and systematic effects.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of the posterior distributions for cosmological parameters from a complete DES-like 3x2pt analysis run once with the symbolic emulators and once with exact numerical integration of the hypergeometric functions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18749 by Deaglan J. Bartlett, Shivam Pandey.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fractional errors on our approximations to the hypergeometric functions required to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Fractional error on symbolic fits to the redshift-zero linear matter power spectrum when compared against CAMB. We plot the 68% error distributions when the cosmological parameters are varied across the range given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between the true and symbolic fits for the halofit variables: the nonlinear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fractional error on symbolic fits to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: One- and two-dimensional posterior distributions of the cosmological parameters for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginalised posterior distributions of all parameters considered in our mock DES-Y1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In cosmology, emulators play a crucial role by providing fast and accurate predictions of complex physical models, enabling efficient exploration of high-dimensional parameter spaces that would be computationally prohibitive with direct numerical simulations. Symbolic emulators have emerged as promising alternatives to numerical approaches, delivering comparable accuracy with significantly faster evaluation times. While previous symbolic emulators were limited to relatively narrow prior ranges, we expand these to cover the parameter space relevant for current cosmological analyses. We introduce approximations to hypergeometric functions used for the $\Lambda$CDM comoving distance and linear growth factor which are accurate to better than 0.001% and 0.05%, respectively, for all redshifts and for $\Omega_{\rm m} \in [0.1, 0.5]$. We show that integrating symbolic emulators into a Dark Energy Survey-like $3\times2$pt analysis produces cosmological constraints consistent with those obtained using standard numerical methods. Our symbolic emulators offer substantial improvements in speed and memory usage, demonstrating their practical potential for scalable, likelihood-based inference.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces symbolic approximations to the hypergeometric functions that appear in the analytic expressions for the comoving distance and linear growth factor in flat ΛCDM. These approximations are reported to achieve relative accuracies better than 0.001% and 0.05%, respectively, for all redshifts and for Ω_m ∈ [0.1, 0.5]. The authors then embed the emulators in a DES-like 3×2pt likelihood analysis and state that the resulting cosmological constraints are statistically consistent with those obtained from standard numerical evaluations of the same quantities, while delivering substantial gains in evaluation speed and memory footprint.

Significance. If the claimed accuracies are robust and the consistency result generalizes, the work would supply a lightweight, interpretable alternative to numerical emulators for the background and linear perturbation quantities that dominate the computational cost of many current and near-future cosmological analyses. The explicit demonstration on a realistic 3×2pt pipeline is a positive step toward practical adoption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and validation] The accuracy statements are given only for the flat-ΛCDM hypergeometric forms (w = −1, Ω_k = 0, massless neutrinos). No re-derivation or error budget is supplied when the background expansion or growth equation changes, yet the central claim is that the emulators can be used inside a full likelihood pipeline. A concrete test (e.g., maximum fractional error on D(z) or fσ8 when w0, wa, or Σm_ν are varied within current priors) is required to support the claim that the quoted 0.001%/0.05% figures remain sufficient.
  2. [Application to 3×2pt analysis] The consistency between symbolic and numerical constraints is shown for a DES-like 3×2pt analysis, but the manuscript does not report the full error budget or the impact of all nuisance parameters and systematic effects on the posterior shift. It is therefore unclear whether the observed consistency would survive once the complete covariance and nuisance marginalization are included.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the precise definition of the relative error (maximum over z, or integrated, or at specific pivot points) and provide the explicit functional forms of the symbolic approximations (including the fitted coefficients) so that readers can reproduce the error curves.
  2. [Performance benchmarks] Add a short table comparing wall-clock time and memory usage of the symbolic emulators versus both direct numerical integration and existing neural-network emulators on the same hardware.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below, clarifying the scope of the work and outlining specific revisions to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results and validation] The accuracy statements are given only for the flat-ΛCDM hypergeometric forms (w = −1, Ω_k = 0, massless neutrinos). No re-derivation or error budget is supplied when the background expansion or growth equation changes, yet the central claim is that the emulators can be used inside a full likelihood pipeline. A concrete test (e.g., maximum fractional error on D(z) or fσ8 when w0, wa, or Σm_ν are varied within current priors) is required to support the claim that the quoted 0.001%/0.05% figures remain sufficient.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for clear scope. Our symbolic emulators approximate the specific hypergeometric functions that appear in the exact analytic expressions for comoving distance and linear growth factor in flat ΛCDM (w = −1, Ω_k = 0, massless neutrinos). These expressions do not hold when w0, wa or Σm_ν are varied, as the background expansion and growth equations change form. The manuscript therefore presents the emulators and the 3×2pt demonstration exclusively within the flat-ΛCDM framework, which remains the baseline for many current analyses. We do not claim the quoted accuracies apply unchanged to extended models. In the revised version we will add explicit statements in the abstract, Section 2, and the conclusions clarifying this scope and noting that extensions would require new symbolic derivations. We will also briefly discuss hybrid approaches (symbolic emulator plus numerical correction for small deviations from ΛCDM). revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Application to 3×2pt analysis] The consistency between symbolic and numerical constraints is shown for a DES-like 3×2pt analysis, but the manuscript does not report the full error budget or the impact of all nuisance parameters and systematic effects on the posterior shift. It is therefore unclear whether the observed consistency would survive once the complete covariance and nuisance marginalization are included.

    Authors: The 3×2pt pipeline in the manuscript already includes the standard DES-like nuisance parameters (galaxy bias, intrinsic alignments, photo-z shifts and widths, shear calibration) and the full covariance matrix. The reported consistency is for the cosmological parameters, with shifts well below statistical uncertainties. To address the concern about the complete error budget, we will expand the results section and add a supplementary table (or figure) that reports the posterior means and 68% intervals for all parameters—both cosmological and nuisance—for both the symbolic and numerical pipelines. We will also quantify the maximum shift in each parameter in units of the posterior standard deviation. This addition will make the full marginalization explicit and confirm that consistency is preserved. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; approximations validated externally against numerical benchmarks

full rationale

The paper constructs symbolic approximations to the hypergeometric expressions for flat-ΛCDM comoving distance and linear growth factor, then reports their maximum relative errors (better than 0.001% and 0.05%) over the stated Ω_m and redshift range by direct comparison to independent numerical evaluations of the same functions. These error figures are therefore measured quantities, not quantities defined by the approximation itself. The subsequent 3×2pt analysis simply substitutes the symbolic forms into an otherwise standard likelihood pipeline and shows posterior consistency with the numerical version; the consistency test is an external check rather than a self-referential definition. No step equates a fitted coefficient or ansatz to the reported accuracy or cosmological constraints by construction, and no load-bearing premise rests solely on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external numerical truth.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of compact symbolic expressions that reproduce hypergeometric functions to the stated precision; these expressions are not derived from first principles in the abstract and are therefore treated as fitted or constructed approximations.

free parameters (2)
  • coefficients in symbolic distance approximation
    Symbolic regression or manual construction typically introduces numerical coefficients tuned to match the target hypergeometric function over the quoted domain.
  • coefficients in symbolic growth-factor approximation
    Same construction process for the linear growth factor emulator.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption flat Lambda CDM background evolution
    The hypergeometric functions themselves are defined only inside the flat Lambda CDM model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5723 in / 1370 out tokens · 28630 ms · 2026-05-18T04:36:49.663083+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2019 The Aemulus Project

    Zhai Z, Tinker JL, Becker MR, DeRose J, Mao YY, McClintock T, McLaughlin S, Rozo E, Wechsler RH. 2019 The Aemulus Project. III. Emulation of the Galaxy Correlation Function. ApJ874, 95. (10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d7b)

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d7b 2019

  2. [2]

    2021 The BACCO simulation project: exploiting the full power of large-scale structure for cosmology.MNRAS 507, 5869–5881

    Angulo RE, Zennaro M, Contreras S, Aricò G, Pellejero-Ibañez M, Stücker J. 2021 The BACCO simulation project: exploiting the full power of large-scale structure for cosmology.MNRAS 507, 5869–5881. (10.1093/mnras/stab2018)

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2018 2021

  3. [3]

    2021 Accelerating Large-Scale-Structure data analyses by emulating Boltzmann solvers and Lagrangian Perturbation Theory

    Aricò G, Angulo RE, Zennaro M. 2021 Accelerating Large-Scale-Structure data analyses by emulating Boltzmann solvers and Lagrangian Perturbation Theory. (10.12688/openreseurope.14310.2)

    work page doi:10.12688/openreseurope.14310.2 2021

  4. [4]

    2023 The BACCO simulation project: biased tracers in real space.MNRAS524, 2407–2419

    Zennaro M, Angulo RE, Pellejero-Ibáñez M, Stücker J, Contreras S, Aricò G. 2023 The BACCO simulation project: biased tracers in real space.MNRAS524, 2407–2419. (10.1093/mnras/stad2008)

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2008 2023

  5. [5]

    2024 COBRA: Optimal Factorization of Cosmological Observables.arXiv e-printsp

    Bakx T, Chisari NE, Vlah Z. 2024 COBRA: Optimal Factorization of Cosmological Observables.arXiv e-printsp. arXiv:2407.04660. (10.48550/arXiv.2407.04660)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.04660 2024

  6. [6]

    2017 The Mira-Titan Universe

    Lawrence E, Heitmann K, Kwan J, Upadhye A, Bingham D, Habib S, Higdon D, Pope A, Finkel H, Frontiere N. 2017 The Mira-Titan Universe. II. Matter Power Spectrum Emulation. ApJ847, 50. (10.3847/1538-4357/aa86a9)

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa86a9 2017

  7. [7]

    2022 COSMOPOWER: emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys

    Spurio Mancini A, Piras D, Alsing J, Joachimi B, Hobson MP . 2022 COSMOPOWER: emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys. MNRAS511, 1771–1788. (10.1093/mnras/stac064)

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac064 2022

  8. [8]

    2023 CosmoPower-JAX: high-dimensional Bayesian inference with differentiable cosmological emulators.The Open Journal of Astrophysics6, 20

    Piras D, Spurio Mancini A. 2023 CosmoPower-JAX: high-dimensional Bayesian inference with differentiable cosmological emulators.The Open Journal of Astrophysics6, 20. (10.21105/astro.2305.06347)

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2305.06347 2023

  9. [9]

    Afrin, S

    Nishimichi T, Takada M, Takahashi R, Osato K, Shirasaki M, Oogi T, Miyatake H, Oguri M, Murata R, Kobayashi Y, Yoshida N. 2019 Dark Quest. I. Fast and Accurate Emulation of Halo Clustering Statistics and Its Application to Galaxy Clustering.ApJ884, 29. (10.3847/1538- 4357/ab3719)

    work page doi:10.3847/1538- 2019

  10. [10]

    2022 Kernel-based emulator for the 3D matter power spectrum from CLASS.Astronomy and Computing38, 100508

    Mootoovaloo A, Jaffe AH, Heavens AF, Leclercq F. 2022 Kernel-based emulator for the 3D matter power spectrum from CLASS.Astronomy and Computing38, 100508. (10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100508)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100508 2022

  11. [11]

    Euclid Collaboration, Knabenhans M, Stadel J, Marelli S, Potter D, Teyssier R, Legrand 20royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 0000000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L, Schneider A, Sudret B, Blot L, Awan S, Burigana...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz197 2019

  12. [12]

    2021 Euclid preparation: IX

    Euclid Collaboration et al.. 2021 Euclid preparation: IX. EuclidEmulator2 - power spectrum emulation with massive neutrinos and self-consistent dark energy perturbations.MNRAS505, 2840–2869. (10.1093/mnras/stab1366)

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1366 2021

  13. [13]

    2019 Emulators for the nonlinear matter power spectrum beyondΛCDM.Phys

    Winther HA, Casas S, Baldi M, Koyama K, Li B, Lombriser L, Zhao GB. 2019 Emulators for the nonlinear matter power spectrum beyondΛCDM.Phys. Rev. D100, 123540. (10.1103/PhysRevD.100.123540)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.123540 2019

  14. [14]

    2009 The Coyote Universe

    Heitmann K, Higdon D, White M, Habib S, Williams BJ, Lawrence E, Wagner C. 2009 The Coyote Universe. II. Cosmological Models and Precision Emulation of the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum.ApJ705, 156–174. (10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/156)

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/156 2009

  15. [15]

    2014 The Coyote Universe Extended: Precision Emulation of the Matter Power Spectrum.ApJ780, 111

    Heitmann K, Lawrence E, Kwan J, Habib S, Higdon D. 2014 The Coyote Universe Extended: Precision Emulation of the Matter Power Spectrum.ApJ780, 111. (10.1088/0004- 637X/780/1/111)

    work page doi:10.1088/0004- 2014

  16. [16]

    2019 Precision modelling of the matter power spectrum in a Planck-like Universe.MNRAS486, 1448–1479

    Smith RE, Angulo RE. 2019 Precision modelling of the matter power spectrum in a Planck-like Universe.MNRAS486, 1448–1479. (10.1093/mnras/stz890)

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz890 2019

  17. [17]

    Computing High Accuracy Power Spectra with Pico

    Fendt WA, Wandelt BD. 2007a Computing High Accuracy Power Spectra with Pico.arXiv e-printsp. arXiv:0712.0194. (10.48550/arXiv.0712.0194)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0712.0194

  18. [18]

    2007b Pico: Parameters for the Impatient Cosmologist.ApJ654, 2–11

    Fendt WA, Wandelt BD. 2007b Pico: Parameters for the Impatient Cosmologist.ApJ654, 2–11. (10.1086/508342)

    work page doi:10.1086/508342

  19. [19]

    1986 The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields.ApJ304, 15

    Bardeen JM, Bond JR, Kaiser N, Szalay AS. 1986 The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields.ApJ304, 15. (10.1086/164143)

    work page doi:10.1086/164143 1986

  20. [20]

    1998 Baryonic Features in the Matter Transfer Function.ApJ496, 605–614

    Eisenstein DJ, Hu W. 1998 Baryonic Features in the Matter Transfer Function.ApJ496, 605–614. (10.1086/305424)

    work page doi:10.1086/305424 1998

  21. [21]

    1999 Power Spectra for Cold Dark Matter and Its Variants.ApJ511, 5–15

    Eisenstein DJ, Hu W. 1999 Power Spectra for Cold Dark Matter and Its Variants.ApJ511, 5–15. (10.1086/306640)

    work page doi:10.1086/306640 1999

  22. [22]

    2024Symbolic Regression

    Kronberger G, Burlacu B, Kommenda M, Winkler SM, Affenzeller M. 2024Symbolic Regression. Chapman & Hall / CRC Press

    work page

  23. [23]

    2024a A precise symbolic emulator of the linear matter power spectrum.A&A686, A209

    Bartlett DJ, Kammerer L, Kronberger G, Desmond H, Ferreira PG, Wandelt BD, Burlacu B, Alonso D, Zennaro M. 2024a A precise symbolic emulator of the linear matter power spectrum.A&A686, A209. (10.1051/0004-6361/202348811)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348811

  24. [24]

    2024b SYREN-HALOFIT: A fast, interpretable, high-precision formula for theΛCDM nonlinear matter power spectrum

    Bartlett DJ, Wandelt BD, Zennaro M, Ferreira PG, Desmond H. 2024b SYREN-HALOFIT: A fast, interpretable, high-precision formula for theΛCDM nonlinear matter power spectrum. A&A686, A150. (10.1051/0004-6361/202449854)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449854

  25. [25]

    2025 SYREN-NEW: Precise formulae for the linear and nonlinear matter power spectra with massive neutrinos and dynamical dark energy.A&A698, A1

    Sui C, Bartlett DJ, Pandey S, Desmond H, Ferreira PG, Wandelt BD. 2025 SYREN-NEW: Precise formulae for the linear and nonlinear matter power spectra with massive neutrinos and dynamical dark energy.A&A698, A1. (10.1051/0004-6361/202452854)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452854 2025

  26. [26]

    2024 Machine learning unveils the linear matter power spectrum of modified gravity.Phys

    Orjuela-Quintana JB, Nesseris S, Sapone D. 2024 Machine learning unveils the linear matter power spectrum of modified gravity.Phys. Rev. D109, 063511. (10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063511)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063511 2024

  27. [27]

    2024 Analytical Emulator for the Linear Matter Power Spectrum from Physics-Informed Machine Learning.arXiv e-printsp

    Bayron Orjuela-Quintana J, Sapone D, Nesseris S. 2024 Analytical Emulator for the Linear Matter Power Spectrum from Physics-Informed Machine Learning.arXiv e-printsp. arXiv:2407.16640

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    2025 syren-baryon: Analytic emulators for the impact of baryons on the matter power spectrum.A&A701, A284

    Kammerer L, Bartlett DJ, Kronberger G, Desmond H, Ferreira PG. 2025 syren-baryon: Analytic emulators for the impact of baryons on the matter power spectrum.A&A701, A284. (10.1051/0004-6361/202555887)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555887 2025

  29. [29]

    2018 Preparing for the cosmic shear data flood: Optimal data extraction and simulation requirements for stage IV dark energy experiments.Phys

    Taylor PL, Kitching TD, McEwen JD. 2018 Preparing for the cosmic shear data flood: Optimal data extraction and simulation requirements for stage IV dark energy experiments.Phys. Rev. D98, 043532. (10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043532)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043532 2018

  30. [30]

    2020 Operon C++: An Efficient Genetic Programming Framework for Symbolic Regression

    Burlacu B, Kronberger G, Kommenda M. 2020 Operon C++: An Efficient Genetic Programming Framework for Symbolic Regression. InProceedings of the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference CompanionGECCO ’20 p. 1562–1570 New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. (10.1145/3377929.3398099)

    work page doi:10.1145/3377929.3398099 2020

  31. [31]

    1944 A METHOD FOR THE SOLUTION OF CERTAIN NON – LINEAR PROBLEMS IN LEAST SQUARES.Quarterly of Applied Mathematics2, 164–168

    Levenberg K. 1944 A METHOD FOR THE SOLUTION OF CERTAIN NON – LINEAR PROBLEMS IN LEAST SQUARES.Quarterly of Applied Mathematics2, 164–168

    work page 1944

  32. [32]

    1963 An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters

    Marquardt DW. 1963 An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics11, 431–441. (10.1137/0111030) 21royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 0000000

    work page doi:10.1137/0111030 1963

  33. [33]

    2020 Parameter Identification for Symbolic Regression Using Nonlinear Least Squares.Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines21, 471–501

    Kommenda M, Burlacu B, Kronberger G, Affenzeller M. 2020 Parameter Identification for Symbolic Regression Using Nonlinear Least Squares.Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines21, 471–501. (10.1007/s10710-019-09371-3)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10710-019-09371-3 2020

  34. [34]

    2002 Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.Evol

    Laumanns M, Thiele L, Deb K, Zitzler E. 2002 Combining Convergence and Diversity in Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.Evol. Comput.10, 263–282. (10.1162/106365602760234108)

    work page doi:10.1162/106365602760234108 2002

  35. [35]

    2023 Priors for symbolic regression

    Bartlett DJ, Desmond H, Ferreira PG. 2023 Priors for symbolic regression. InThe Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2023. (10.1145/3583133.3596327)

    work page doi:10.1145/3583133.3596327 2023

  36. [36]

    1977 The growth of density perturbations in zero pressure Friedmann-Lemaître universes..MNRAS179, 351–358

    Heath DJ. 1977 The growth of density perturbations in zero pressure Friedmann-Lemaître universes..MNRAS179, 351–358. (10.1093/mnras/179.3.351)

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.351 1977

  37. [37]

    1980The large-scale structure of the universe

    Peebles PJE. 1980The large-scale structure of the universe

    work page

  38. [38]

    2000 Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models.ApJ538, 473–476

    Lewis A, Challinor A, Lasenby A. 2000 Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models.ApJ538, 473–476. (10.1086/309179)

    work page doi:10.1086/309179 2000

  39. [39]

    2024 Exhaustive Symbolic Regression.IEEE T ransactions on Evolutionary Computation28, 950–964

    Bartlett DJ, Desmond H, Ferreira PG. 2024 Exhaustive Symbolic Regression.IEEE T ransactions on Evolutionary Computation28, 950–964. (10.1109/TEVC.2023.3280250)

    work page doi:10.1109/tevc.2023.3280250 2024

  40. [40]

    2003Modern Cosmology

    Dodelson S. 2003Modern Cosmology

    work page

  41. [41]

    2023 JAX-COSMO: An End-to-End Differentiable and GPU Accelerated Cosmology Library.The Open Journal of Astrophysics6, 15

    Campagne JE, Lanusse F, Zuntz J, Boucaud A, Casas S, Karamanis M, Kirkby D, Lanzieri D, Peel A, Li Y. 2023 JAX-COSMO: An End-to-End Differentiable and GPU Accelerated Cosmology Library.The Open Journal of Astrophysics6, 15. (10.21105/astro.2302.05163)

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2302.05163 2023

  42. [42]

    J., Storey P

    Smith RE, Peacock JA, Jenkins A, White SDM, Frenk CS, Pearce FR, Thomas PA, Efstathiou G, Couchman HMP . 2003 Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra.MNRAS341, 1311–1332. (10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06503.x)

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06503.x 2003

  43. [43]

    N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19536.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1587T 418, 1587

    Bird S, Viel M, Haehnelt MG. 2012 Massive neutrinos and the non-linear matter power spectrum.MNRAS420, 2551–2561. (10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20222.x)

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20222.x 2012

  44. [44]

    2012 Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum.ApJ761, 152

    Takahashi R, Sato M, Nishimichi T, Taruya A, Oguri M. 2012 Revising the Halofit Model for the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum.ApJ761, 152. (10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152)

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/152 2012

  45. [45]

    N., et al., 2003, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/377226 , 148, 175

    Spergel DN, Verde L, Peiris HV , Komatsu E, Nolta MR, Bennett CL, Halpern M, Hinshaw G, Jarosik N, Kogut A, Limon M, Meyer SS, Page L, Tucker GS, Weiland JL, Wollack E, Wright EL. 2003 First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters.ApJS148, 175–194. (10.1086/377226)

    work page doi:10.1086/377226 2003

  46. [46]

    2018 Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing.Phys

    Abbott TMC, Abdalla FB, Alarcon A, Aleksi´ c J, Allam S, Allen S, Amara A, Annis J, Asorey J, Avila S, Bacon D, Balbinot E, Banerji M, Banik N, Barkhouse W, Baumer M, Baxter E, Bechtol K, Becker MR, Benoit-Lévy A, Benson BA, Bernstein GM, Bertin E, Blazek J, Bridle SL, Brooks D, Brout D, Buckley-Geer E, Burke DL, Busha MT, Campos A, Capozzi D, Carnero Ros...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043526 2018

  47. [47]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Multi-Probe Methodology and Simulated Likelihood Analyses

    Krause E, Eifler TF, Zuntz J, Friedrich O, Troxel MA, Dodelson S, Blazek J, Secco LF, MacCrann N, Baxter E, Chang C, Chen N, Crocce M, DeRose J, Ferte A, Kokron N, Lacasa F, Miranda V , Omori Y, Porredon A, Rosenfeld R, Samuroff S, Wang M, Wechsler RH, Abbott TMC, Abdalla FB, Allam S, Annis J, Bechtol K, Benoit-Levy A, Bernstein GM, Brooks D, Burke DL, Ca...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.09359 2017

  48. [48]

    2008 Extended Limber approximation.Phys

    LoVerde M, Afshordi N. 2008 Extended Limber approximation.Phys. Rev. D78, 123506. (10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123506)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.123506 2008

  49. [49]

    2011 Constraints on intrinsic alignment contamination of weak lensing surveys using the MegaZ-LRG sample.A&A527, A26

    Joachimi B, Mandelbaum R, Abdalla FB, Bridle SL. 2011 Constraints on intrinsic alignment contamination of weak lensing surveys using the MegaZ-LRG sample.A&A527, A26. (10.1051/0004-6361/201015621)

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015621 2011

  50. [50]

    2015 CosmoSIS: Modular cosmological parameter estimation.Astronomy and Computing12, 45–59

    Zuntz J, Paterno M, Jennings E, Rudd D, Manzotti A, Dodelson S, Bridle S, Sehrish S, Kowalkowski J. 2015 CosmoSIS: Modular cosmological parameter estimation.Astronomy and Computing12, 45–59. (10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.005)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.005 2015

  51. [51]

    F., Jimenez R., Panter B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12323.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.381.1252T 381, 1252

    Feroz F, Hobson MP . 2008 Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for astronomical data analyses.MNRAS384, 449–463. (10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x)

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x 2008

  52. [52]

    2009 MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics.MNRAS398, 1601–1614

    Feroz F, Hobson MP , Bridges M. 2009 MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics.MNRAS398, 1601–1614. (10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2009.14548.x)

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2009

  53. [53]

    Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm

    Feroz F, Hobson MP , Cameron E, Pettitt AN. 2019 Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm.The Open Journal of Astrophysics2, 10. (10.21105/astro.1306.2144)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.1306.2144 2019

  54. [54]

    The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Hoffman MD, Gelman A. 2011 The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo.arXiv e-printsp. arXiv:1111.4246. (10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1111.4246 2011

  55. [55]

    Pyro: Deep Universal Probabilistic Programming

    Bingham E, Chen JP , Jankowiak M, Obermeyer F, Pradhan N, Karaletsos T, Singh R, Szerlip P , Horsfall P , Goodman ND. 2018 Pyro: Deep Universal Probabilistic Programming.arXiv e- printsp. arXiv:1810.09538. (10.48550/arXiv.1810.09538)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.09538 2018

  56. [56]

    Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyro

    Phan D, Pradhan N, Jankowiak M. 2019 Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyro.arXiv e-printsp. arXiv:1912.11554. (10.48550/arXiv.1912.11554)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.11554 2019

  57. [57]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples

    Lewis A. 2019 GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples.arXiv e-printsp. arXiv:1910.13970. (10.48550/arXiv.1910.13970)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.13970 2019