Transfer Learning Beyond the Standard Model

Adrian E. Bayer; Christian Kragh Jespersen; Peter Melchior; Veena Krishnaraj

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 19 references

Transfer Learning Beyond the Standard Model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pre-training on the standard model of cosmology can slash the simulation cost of probing new physics, but only when parameter degeneracies are weak—and a simple dummy-node architecture is what makes the transfer work.

desk verdict A useful empirical study of transfer learning for beyond-ΛCDM inference, but the dummy-node mechanism is likely a red herring and the quantitative savings rest on an under-specified model selection procedure. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.19168 v1 pith:BUKOKW4S submitted 2025-10-22 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMcs.LGphysics.data-an

Veena Krishnaraj , Adrian E. Bayer , Christian Kragh Jespersen , Peter Melchior This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMcs.LGphysics.data-an

keywords transferlearningcosmologicalinferenceΛCDMbeyond-ΛCDMnegativemassiveneutrinosmodifiedgravityprimordialnon-Gaussianity

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

The paper asks whether a neural network trained on ΛCDM simulations can be fine-tuned to infer parameters of beyond-ΛCDM cosmologies—massive neutrinos, modified gravity, and primordial non-Gaussianity—using far fewer expensive simulations. It shows that transfer learning with dummy output nodes can cut simulation requirements by up to an order of magnitude for the power spectrum, while negative transfer arises when a strong degeneracy like σ8–Mν forces the network to unlearn pre-trained feature mappings. The authors compare architectures and find that adding latent 'dummy' nodes to the output layer during pre-training is the best way to balance reuse with flexibility; freezing weights and attaching a head performs worst. If true, this suggests a foundation-model approach in cosmology: one large standard-model pre-training could serve as a reusable backbone for many extensions, provided degeneracies are handled.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-stage transfer-learning setup with 'dummy nodes'—extra output units present during ΛCDM pre-training but ignored in the loss, which are later repurposed for beyond-ΛCDM parameters during fine-tuning. This provides the representational slack that lets the network keep pre-trained features while acquiring new physics. The comparison architectures are weight-initialization without dummies and a frozen 'attach head' approach; the dummy-node approach wins. A secondary mechanism is the parameter-degeneracy analysis via feature attribution, showing that small-scale power-spectrum modes shift from σ8 to Mν under fine-tuning, explaining the negative transfer.

What would settle it

Run the massive-neutrino/marked-power-spectrum experiment at 50 fine-tuning simulations with a fixed architecture (no hyperparameter search) and compare transfer versus from-scratch per-parameter MSE for σ8 and Mν; if transfer does not degrade both, the negative-transfer mechanism is not reproducible. Alternatively, if the speedup vanishes when a single fixed architecture is used instead of validation-selected models, the reported gains are an artifact of selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that transfer learning from ΛCDM to beyond-ΛCDM parameter inference works: fine-tuning a pre-trained fully connected network on a small beyond-ΛCDM set can match the accuracy of training from scratch with an order of magnitude more simulations. The crucial architectural choice is to include dummy output nodes during pre-training so the network has spare capacity for new parameters; this beats both plain weight initialization and a frozen-feature plus trainable head. The paper also establishes that negative transfer is real and predictable: when a summary statistic is sensitive to two degenerate parameters (like the marked power spectrum's sensitivity to σ8 and Mν), the pre-t

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains are the median over the top 10 of 100 hyperparameter-search trials chosen by validation loss; the claim presumes this selection procedure does not bias the transfer-versus-scratch comparison and that the chosen models generalize to the fixed test set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single ΛCDM pre-trained network can be reused for multiple beyond-ΛCDM models, amortizing the cost of the large pre-training simulation set.
For equilateral non-Gaussianity and modified gravity, a few hundred fine-tuning simulations suffice to match or beat training from scratch.
Negative transfer is not generic but is localized to degenerate parameter pairs and sensitive summaries; choosing a different summary (e.g., plain power spectrum) avoids it.
Even a modest pre-training set of 2,000 ΛCDM simulations yields transfer benefits; 22,000 helps further.
The dummy-node design is a simple, architecture-agnostic recipe that other simulation-based inference pipelines can adopt.

Reading between the lines

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

If this holds, the cost structure of cosmological simulation suites shifts: teams can invest once in a large ΛCDM suite and cheaply probe many extensions, making survey analysis more exploratory.
The same σ8–Mν 'unlearning' mechanism likely affects other degenerate pairs (e.g., σ8–fNL or σ8–f(R)) and could be mitigated by explicitly decorrelating features or by pre-training with a mixture of models rather than pure ΛCDM.
A testable extension: apply the dummy-node transfer to full posterior estimation (e.g., normalizing flows)—the paper expects similar gains, and a failure there would highlight a limitation of point-estimate MSE as a transfer metric.
For observables less sensitive to Mν (galaxy clustering, weak lensing), transfer gains may be larger than for the marked power spectrum, as the paper hints.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the clean empirical demonstration that pre-training on ΛCDM and fine-tuning on the other side can either accelerate or hurt inference depending on degeneracies and summary statistic. The negative transfer story for σ8–Mν with the marked power spectrum is well supported by the SHAP analysis and is a practical caution for anyone planning foundation-model-style cosmologies. The comparison across three extensions (neutrinos, f(R), PNG) is exactly what the field needs.

The paper does a lot right: public Quijote simulations, transparent training/validation split, multiple architecture variants, and an explicit look at negative transfer. The SHAP feature analysis is a nice addition, giving a mechanistic reason for why the transfer fails.

Two things worry me, one specific and one methodological.

First, the dummy-node architecture. As described in Sec. 2, the MSE during pre-training is computed only on ΛCDM outputs, so the dummy output units receive no gradient. In a fully connected network the hidden weights are updated only by the ΛCDM outputs, so adding dummy units changes nothing about the learned representation. The only difference between 'with dummy' and 'without dummy' is the initialization of the new head (which in the 'without' case is random, and in the 'with' case is that same random init from pre-training). So the large gap in Fig. 2 between red and teal cannot be due to 'extra representational capacity' or a bottleneck structure. Either there is an implementation detail missing (e.g., dummy nodes placed differently, or a different loss), or the gap is due to Optuna trial selection and not the architecture. The paper's headline architectural recommendation is therefore not supported by the text.

Second, the quantitative 'order of magnitude' claim is computed from the median of the top-10 of 100 Optuna trials, with no code or seeds. This kind of selection can differentially overfit across architectures. A fixed-architecture comparison or code release would make the savings claim much more convincing. As written, the qualitative conclusions are likely robust, but the exact savings figure is not.

The stress-test note's point is correct and it does not directly refute the transfer-vs-no-transfer comparison, but it does mean the architecture comparison is internally inconsistent.

Who is this for? Anyone doing simulation-based inference in cosmology, especially those planning to amortize across models. The negative transfer result is a practical warning that outweighs the architecture issue. I would send this to peer review if the authors release code or can clarify the dummy-node implementation; otherwise I'd ask for a revision. The core qualitative findings are worth publishing.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies transfer learning for simulation-based cosmological inference. A fully connected network is pre-trained on ΛCDM Quijote simulations and then fine-tuned on smaller suites of beyond-ΛCDM simulations (massive neutrinos, f(R) modified gravity, and local/equilateral primordial non-Gaussianities). The authors compare several transfer architectures, report that a 'dummy node' output layer yields the best performance, and claim simulation savings of up to an order of magnitude in favorable cases. They also report negative transfer when the summary statistic is highly sensitive to a degenerate parameter pair (σ8–Mν), and support this interpretation with a SHAP analysis.

Significance. If its quantitative claims hold, this is a useful empirical contribution: it demonstrates on public, high-fidelity simulations that transfer learning can reduce the simulation budget for some beyond-ΛCDM inference tasks, while also cautioning that degeneracies can cause negative transfer. The SHAP analysis provides a concrete diagnostic for identifying such failures. These findings are relevant to the design of simulation suites and surrogate models for upcoming cosmological surveys. The use of the Quijote suite is a strength, as is the comparison across multiple physical extensions. However, the central architectural recommendation and the headline savings are currently undermined by an internal inconsistency in the dummy-node mechanism and by insufficient reproducibility details.

major comments (3)

[2, Fig. 2, Appendix B.2] Section 2 states that during pre-training the MSE is computed only on the ΛCDM outputs, making the dummy output units ψ_dummy true dummies. Such units exert no gradient on the hidden layers, so the pre-trained hidden weights are identical to those of a network without dummy units (Appendix B.2). At fine-tuning, both the 'with dummy' and 'without dummy' variants initialize the beyond-ΛCDM output weights randomly; the only difference is that in the 'with dummy' case those weights have been subject to AdamW weight decay during pre-training. This cannot explain the large performance gap between the red and teal curves in Fig. 2. Either an essential implementation detail is missing (e.g., dummy units in a hidden layer, or a loss term involving the dummy outputs) or the architecture comparison is invalid. Since the abstract credits 'bottleneck structures' for the best performance, this issue i
[3 and 2] Section 3 reports the median MSE of the top-10 models from 100 Optuna trials, but no seeds or code are provided. Validation-based selection among 100 trials can overfit the validation set, and the degree of overfitting may differ between the transfer and no-transfer setups because the hyperparameter search spaces differ (Section 2 lists different learning-rate ranges for pre-training and fine-tuning, but the architecture comparison also has different numbers of output units). If the top-10 selection inflates transfer gains relative to the baseline, the headline 'order of magnitude' savings could be overstated. Please report the full distribution of test MSE across trials (or at least the interquartile range across seeds) and make the code and seeds available.
[Appendix A] In the Mν fine-tuning suite, the equation-of-state parameter w is varied over [−1.3,−0.7] but is not included as an inference target. The matter power spectrum at z=0 depends on w through the growth factor; the network therefore must implicitly marginalize over w, which adds noise to the target parameters and may interact with the transfer process. The paper attributes negative transfer in the marked power spectrum solely to σ8–Mν degeneracy, but w variation is a potential confound. Please quantify the effect of w on the power spectrum (e.g., by checking whether the network can predict w) or justify that it is negligible for the reported MSEs.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract, Section 2] The abstract and Section 2 describe the winning architecture as a 'bottleneck', but the dummy nodes are extra output units, not a bottleneck. The only actual bottleneck tested (the 10-dimensional hidden layer in the 'attach head' variant, Appendix B.2) performs worst. Please adjust the terminology.
[Section 3] The text states 'In all examples we find that even 2,000 pre-training simulations is enough to see benefits from transfer learning', but the preceding paragraph says the local fNL case has 'little advantage'. Please reconcile this apparent contradiction.
[Appendix A] The value of fR0 for the ΛCDM suite is missing ('f R0 =' should likely be 'f R0 = 0'). Also, in Appendix B.3, 'grater' should be 'greater'.
[Fig. 2] Please clarify whether the N_CDM=0 baseline undergoes the same 100-trial Optuna search and top-10 selection as the transfer runs; the text implies this but it is not stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is an empirical transfer-learning comparison against a no-transfer baseline on external public simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical result: pre-training on the Quijote ΛCDM suite and fine-tuning on separate Quijote beyond-ΛCDM suites reduces the number of beyond-ΛCDM simulations needed to reach a given test MSE, relative to training from scratch on the beyond-ΛCDM data alone. The quantities being compared (test MSE as a function of N_finetune) are measured, not derived from the pre-training inputs: network weights are fit to training data, hyperparameters are selected on validation data via Optuna, and all reported errors are on fixed held-out test sets. The negative-transfer explanation invokes the σ8–Mν degeneracy, supported by the external Bayer et al. (2021, 2022) and Massara et al. (2021) results; even though Bayer is a coauthor, those references are independent physical/simulation findings, not definitions of the transfer-learning target. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no central quantity is defined in terms of the output it claims to predict, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The dummy-node architectural comparison is potentially implementation-sensitive, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circular-derivation concern. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not derive a formula; its conclusions are empirical and rest on the trustworthiness of Quijote simulations, the choice of MSE on normalized parameters as the performance metric, and the way models were selected. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Neural network weights and biases = not reported
All reported MSE curves come from trained networks; weights are fit to simulation data and no trained weights or seeds are released, so the exact numbers are not reproducible.
Hyperparameters (number of layers/neurons, learning rate, weight decay, dropout) = chosen by Optuna TPE, values not reported
The reported performance is the median of the top-10 models from this search, so the headline result depends on the search and selection, not a fixed model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Quijote simulations accurately model the power spectra for each cosmology considered (ΛCDM, Mν, f(R), PNG).
The entire study infers parameters from power spectra of these simulations; no validation against observational data or convergence tests is presented.
domain assumption MSE on [0,1]-normalized parameters is a valid proxy for cosmological inference quality.
The paper measures performance via total/per-parameter MSE on normalized parameters; actual SBI would use posteriors. The discussion anticipates extension to normalizing flows.
domain assumption The marked power spectrum's σ8–Mν degeneracy is physical and represented in the simulations.
Used to explain negative transfer in Section 3 and Appendix B.3, relying on Massara et al. 2021 and Bayer et al. 2021.
standard math A multilayer perceptron trained by AdamW can learn the P(k)→parameter map.
Standard ML background; not unique to this paper and not the central claim.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transfer Learning Beyond the Standard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUKOKW4S

@misc{pith2026251019168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transfer Learning Beyond the Standard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUKOKW4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.19168}
}

abstract

Machine learning enables powerful cosmological inference but typically requires many high-fidelity simulations covering many cosmological models. Transfer learning offers a way to reduce the simulation cost by reusing knowledge across models. We show that pre-training on the standard model of cosmology, $\Lambda$CDM, and fine-tuning on various beyond-$\Lambda$CDM scenarios -- including massive neutrinos, modified gravity, and primordial non-Gaussianities -- can enable inference with significantly fewer beyond-$\Lambda$CDM simulations. However, we also show that negative transfer can occur when strong physical degeneracies exist between $\Lambda$CDM and beyond-$\Lambda$CDM parameters. We consider various transfer architectures, finding that including bottleneck structures provides the best performance. Our findings illustrate the opportunities and pitfalls of foundation-model approaches in physics: pre-training can accelerate inference, but may also hinder learning new physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19168 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Test MSE as a function of the number of fine-tuning simulations for the massive neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Total MSE across all normalized parameters for modified gravity (left), equilateral (center), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Extension of Figure 2 showing the MSE for all individual parameters in the massive neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Same as Figure 3, but showing MSE for each individual parameter in the modified gravity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Same as Figure 2, but showing the MSE for all individual parameters in the massive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: SHAP beeswarm plots for Ωm and σ8 in the pretrained model (left) and for Ωm, σ8, and Mν in the fine-tuned model (right), computed on the marked power spectrum MP(k). SHAP values quantify the local contribution of a feature (y-axis) to the model output relative to a bas…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2019

2019
[2]

Bayer, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Elena Massara, Jia Liu, David N

Adrian E. Bayer, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Elena Massara, Jia Liu, David N. Spergel, Licia Verde, Benjamin D. Wandelt, Matteo Viel, and Shirley Ho. Detecting Neutrino Mass by Combining Matter Clustering, Halos, and Voids . Astrophys. J., 919 0 (1): 0 24, 2021. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e91

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e91 2021
[3]

Bayer , Arka Banerjee , and Uro s Seljak

Adrian E. Bayer , Arka Banerjee , and Uro s Seljak . Beware of fake 's: The effect of massive neutrinos on the nonlinear evolution of cosmic structure . Physical Review D, 105 0 (12): 0 123510, June 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123510

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123510 2022
[4]

Representation learning: A review and new perspectives, 2014

Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives, 2014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5538

arXiv 2014
[5]

William R Coulton, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Drew Jamieson, Marco Baldi, Gabriel Jung, Dionysios Karagiannis, Michele Liguori, Licia Verde, and Benjamin D. Wandelt. Quijote-png: Simulations of primordial non-gaussianity and the information content of the matter field power spectrum and bispectrum. The Astrophysical Journal, 943 0 (1): 0 64, January 2...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca8a7 2023
[6]

DESI Collaboration , A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, M. Bonici, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Brooks, E. Buck...

arXiv 2024
[7]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

arXiv 2019
[8]

Cosmological constraints from non-Gaussian and nonlinear galaxy clustering using the SimBIG inference framework

ChangHoon Hahn et al. Cosmological constraints from non-Gaussian and nonlinear galaxy clustering using the SimBIG inference framework . Nature Astron., 8 0 (11): 0 1457--1467, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02344-2

doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02344-2 2024

Show all 19 references

[9]

Multilevel neural simulation-based inference

Yuga Hikida, Ayush Bharti, Niall Jeffrey, and Fran c ois-Xavier Briol. Multilevel neural simulation-based inference . 6 2025

2025
[10]

Information-ordered bottlenecks for adaptive semantic compression, 2023

Matthew Ho, Xiaosheng Zhao, and Benjamin Wandelt. Information-ordered bottlenecks for adaptive semantic compression, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11213

2023 arXiv
[11]

Models of f(R) cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests

Wayne Hu and Ignacy Sawicki. Models of f(R) cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests. Physical Review D, 76 0 (6), September 2007. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.064004. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064004

2007 doi
[12]

Elena Massara, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Shirley Ho, Neal Dalal, and David N. Spergel. Using the Marked Power Spectrum to Detect the Signature of Neutrinos in Large-Scale Structure . Phys. Rev. Lett., 126 0 (1): 0 011301, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.011301

2021 doi
[13]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. URL https://ar...

2021 arXiv
[14]

Saoulis, Davide Piras, Niall Jeffrey, Alessio Spurio Mancini, Ana M

Alex A. Saoulis, Davide Piras, Niall Jeffrey, Alessio Spurio Mancini, Ana M. G. Ferreira, and Benjamin Joachimi. Transfer learning for multifidelity simulation-based inference in cosmology, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21215

2025
[15]

Bayer, and Naoya Takeishi

Leander Thiele, Adrian E. Bayer, and Naoya Takeishi. Simulation-Efficient Cosmological Inference with Multi-Fidelity SBI . 7 2025

2025
[16]

Kreisch, Andrina Nicola, Justin Alsing, Roman Scoccimarro, Licia Verde, Matteo Viel, Shirley Ho, Stephane Mallat, Benjamin Wandelt, and David N

Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, ChangHoon Hahn, Elena Massara, Arka Banerjee, Ana Maria Delgado, Doogesh Kodi Ramanah, Tom Charnock, Elena Giusarma, Yin Li, Erwan Allys, Antoine Brochard, Cora Uhlemann, Chi-Ting Chiang, Siyu He, Alice Pisani, Andrej Obuljen, Yu Feng, Emanuele C...

2020
[17]

How transferable are features in deep neural networks?, 2014

Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Yoshua Bengio, and Hod Lipson. How transferable are features in deep neural networks?, 2014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1792

2014 arXiv
[18]

A survey on negative transfer

Wen Zhang, Lingfei Deng, Lei Zhang, and Dongrui Wu. A survey on negative transfer. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10 0 (2): 0 305–329, February 2023. ISSN 2329-9274. doi:10.1109/jas.2022.106004. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2022.106004

2023
[19]

A comprehensive survey on transfer learning, 2020

Fuzhen Zhuang, Zhiyuan Qi, Keyu Duan, Dongbo Xi, Yongchun Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02685

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework

Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2019

2019

[2] [2]

Bayer, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Elena Massara, Jia Liu, David N

Adrian E. Bayer, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Elena Massara, Jia Liu, David N. Spergel, Licia Verde, Benjamin D. Wandelt, Matteo Viel, and Shirley Ho. Detecting Neutrino Mass by Combining Matter Clustering, Halos, and Voids . Astrophys. J., 919 0 (1): 0 24, 2021. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e91

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e91 2021

[3] [3]

Bayer , Arka Banerjee , and Uro s Seljak

Adrian E. Bayer , Arka Banerjee , and Uro s Seljak . Beware of fake 's: The effect of massive neutrinos on the nonlinear evolution of cosmic structure . Physical Review D, 105 0 (12): 0 123510, June 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123510

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123510 2022

[4] [4]

Representation learning: A review and new perspectives, 2014

Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives, 2014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.5538

arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

William R Coulton, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Drew Jamieson, Marco Baldi, Gabriel Jung, Dionysios Karagiannis, Michele Liguori, Licia Verde, and Benjamin D. Wandelt. Quijote-png: Simulations of primordial non-gaussianity and the information content of the matter field power spectrum and bispectrum. The Astrophysical Journal, 943 0 (1): 0 64, January 2...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca8a7 2023

[6] [6]

DESI Collaboration , A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. Andrade, E. Armengaud, S. Avila, A. Aviles, H. Awan, B. Bahr-Kalus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, A. Bault, J. Behera, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler, D. Bianchi, C. Blake, R. Blum, M. Bonici, S. Brieden, A. Brodzeller, D. Brooks, E. Buck...

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Cosmological constraints from non-Gaussian and nonlinear galaxy clustering using the SimBIG inference framework

ChangHoon Hahn et al. Cosmological constraints from non-Gaussian and nonlinear galaxy clustering using the SimBIG inference framework . Nature Astron., 8 0 (11): 0 1457--1467, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02344-2

doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02344-2 2024