pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00821 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Optimization of Weak Lensing Lightcone Simulations for Higher-Order Statistics in the LSST era

J. Mena-Fern\'andez , C. Doux , J. Harnois-D\'eraps , K. Heitmann , C. Combet , P. Larsen , N. Frontiere , A. Bera
show 4 more authors
S. Samario-Nava L. Castiblanco C. Uhlemann The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords weak lensinglightcone simulationshigher-order statisticsLSSTcosmic shearN-body simulationssimulation optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lightcone simulations with 2048 cubed particles allow cutting mass shells to about 50 for LSST higher-order weak lensing statistics with under 0.3 sigma error.

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

The paper optimizes parameters for building lightcone simulations that will support higher-order statistics analyses of weak lensing data from the LSST survey. It benchmarks different particle counts, shell numbers, and ways of spacing the shells by measuring how much each choice shifts the chi-squared values on a full set of cosmic shear statistics in mocks that match ten years of LSST observations. Higher particle resolution of 2048 cubed makes the results stable even when the number of shells drops from roughly 100 to 50, while lower resolution shows clear instabilities in the higher-order measures. Spacing the shells evenly in scale factor works better than spacing in redshift or distance, and particle density can be thinned out above redshift 1.5 with no detectable effect on the statistics. These findings directly inform how to build the large simulation suites needed for covariance estimation and emulation in upcoming Stage-IV analyses.

Core claim

Simulations run with 2048 cubed particles reproduce the full suite of higher-order statistics to within 0.1-0.3 sigma of the reference case when the number of mass shells is reduced to approximately 50; this holds under both the standard snapshot-slicing lightcone construction and an exact lightcone mode that integrates individual particle trajectories, while 1024 cubed particles produce instabilities across varying shell counts and uniform discretization in scale factor outperforms uniform spacing in redshift or comoving distance.

What carries the argument

Chi-squared differences computed on mock LSST-like cosmic shear higher-order statistics, using uniform scale-factor discretization of the lightcone and cross-checked between snapshot slicing and exact particle-trajectory lightcone modes.

If this is right

  • At 2048 cubed particle resolution, reducing N_shells to approximately 50 keeps all considered higher-order statistics within 0.1-0.3 sigma of the highest-resolution reference.
  • Uniform discretization of the lightcone in scale factor produces higher accuracy than uniform spacing in redshift or comoving distance.
  • Significant downsampling of particle density per pixel is possible for redshifts above 1.5 with no measurable impact on the statistics.
  • 1024 cubed particles suffice for two-point statistics up to multipole 5000 but lead to instabilities in higher-order statistics when shell number is varied.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Saved computational effort from fewer shells and high-redshift downsampling could be redirected to generating additional independent realizations, improving covariance estimates for LSST analyses.
  • The snapshot-slicing versus exact-lightcone verification indicates that the faster snapshot method remains reliable at these resolutions for production-scale campaigns.
  • If the mock chi-squared test correlates with real-data biases, comparable shell and resolution reductions may be viable for other Stage-IV weak-lensing surveys.
  • The stability at reduced shell counts suggests that the higher-order statistics receive most of their constraining power from lower-redshift shells where particle density is kept high.

Load-bearing premise

The chi-squared shifts measured on these particular mock LSST-like cosmic shear statistics will correctly indicate how the same simulation choices affect real data analysis pipelines that rely on the simulations for covariance estimation or emulation.

What would settle it

Directly comparing the full set of higher-order statistics from lightcone simulations built with exactly 50 shells against those built with 100 shells, both in the exact lightcone mode, and checking whether any statistic exceeds a 0.3 sigma shift in the LSST-mock chi-squared would falsify the claim of only minor deviations.

read the original abstract

We present a framework for generating lightcone simulations tailored to the analysis of Stage-IV cosmic shear data using Higher-Order Statistics (HOS). We revisit key design choices from previous simulation campaigns and re-optimize several internal parameters, benchmarking accuracy through changes in $\chi^2$ of cosmic shear statistics under survey conditions mimicking 10 years of observations from the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST). We find that discretizing the lightcone uniformly in scale factor yields higher accuracy than commonly adopted schemes such as uniform spacing in redshift or comoving distance. While $N_{\rm part} = 1024^3$ simulation particles (corresponding to a mass resolution of $m_{\rm part} = 2.08\times10^{10}M_\odot$) is sufficient to model two-point statistics up to $\ell = 5000$, we observed significant instabilities on our full suite of HOS as the number of mass shells used in the lightcone construction, $N_{\rm shells}$, is varied. In contrast, simulations with $N_{\rm part} = 2048^3$ particles ($m_{\rm part} = 2.60\times10^{9}M_\odot$) robustly reproduce all statistics considered. In this higher-resolution configuration, $N_{\rm shells}$ can be reduced to $\sim50$ with only minor deviations, no larger than $0.1-0.3\sigma$ relative to our highest-resolution case ($N_{\rm shells}\sim100$). This has been explicitly verified through a comparison between our fiducial lightcone production mode based on slicing particle snapshots and an exact lightcone mode where individual particle trajectories are solved for at runtime. We further show that the particle density per pixel can be downsampled by a significant amount for $z>1.5$, saving large computational resources with no impact on the resulting statistics. These results guide the design of upcoming simulation campaigns geared towards forward-modeling and emulation-based analyses of Stage-IV data.

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 manuscript presents an optimization framework for weak-lensing lightcone simulations aimed at higher-order statistics (HOS) analyses of Stage-IV cosmic shear data, using survey conditions that mimic 10 years of LSST observations. It benchmarks particle resolution (N_part = 1024^3 vs 2048^3), lightcone discretization (uniform in scale factor versus redshift or comoving distance), number of mass shells (N_shells), and high-redshift particle downsampling. Accuracy is quantified exclusively through changes in chi-squared of the mean cosmic-shear statistics, with explicit cross-checks between the fiducial snapshot-slicing mode and an exact lightcone mode that integrates particle trajectories at runtime. The central result is that N_part = 2048^3 permits N_shells ~50 with deviations no larger than 0.1-0.3 sigma relative to N_shells ~100, while downsampling at z>1.5 yields no measurable impact on the statistics.

Significance. If the reported optimizations are robust, the work supplies concrete, computationally efficient design guidelines for the large simulation suites required by forward-modeling and emulation pipelines in LSST analyses. Explicit verification via the exact-lightcone comparison and chi-squared benchmarks across a suite of HOS constitute clear strengths that increase the practical utility of the recommendations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results on N_shells reduction: accuracy is demonstrated solely via chi-squared shifts in the mean values of the cosmic-shear statistics. For the stated downstream applications (covariance estimation and emulator training), preservation of the variance structure, cross-correlations, and higher moments is required; the present tests supply no direct evidence that reduced-N_shells or downsampled runs reproduce these quantities to the precision needed by Stage-IV pipelines.
  2. [Results on particle downsampling] Section describing the downsampling procedure for z>1.5: the claim of 'no impact on the resulting statistics' is quantified only through the same mean chi-squared metric. A direct comparison of the covariance matrices or the full HOS distributions between the fiducial and downsampled runs would be needed to support the computational-saving recommendation for emulation campaigns.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify in the methods section whether the chi-squared values incorporate the full covariance matrix of the HOS or only diagonal errors; this affects interpretation of the 0.1-0.3 sigma deviations.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that uniform scale-factor discretization outperforms redshift or comoving-distance spacing; a supplementary table listing the chi-squared values for each scheme under identical N_part and N_shells would improve transparency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and for the constructive major comments, which help clarify the requirements for downstream applications in Stage-IV analyses. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the validation of our optimizations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results on N_shells reduction: accuracy is demonstrated solely via chi-squared shifts in the mean values of the cosmic-shear statistics. For the stated downstream applications (covariance estimation and emulator training), preservation of the variance structure, cross-correlations, and higher moments is required; the present tests supply no direct evidence that reduced-N_shells or downsampled runs reproduce these quantities to the precision needed by Stage-IV pipelines.

    Authors: We agree that our validation focused on chi-squared shifts in the mean HOS values, which quantifies bias in the statistics themselves under LSST-like conditions. This metric was chosen because it provides a direct, survey-specific accuracy test that incorporates the full covariance of the data vector. However, we recognize the referee's point that covariance estimation and emulator training also require the variance structure, cross-correlations, and higher moments to be preserved. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit comparisons of the covariance matrices (and, where computationally feasible, the HOS distributions) between the fiducial high-N_shells runs and the optimized N_shells ~50 configurations. We will also include a brief discussion of the implications for emulator training. These additions will be based on the existing simulation suite and the exact-lightcone cross-checks already performed. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on particle downsampling] Section describing the downsampling procedure for z>1.5: the claim of 'no impact on the resulting statistics' is quantified only through the same mean chi-squared metric. A direct comparison of the covariance matrices or the full HOS distributions between the fiducial and downsampled runs would be needed to support the computational-saving recommendation for emulation campaigns.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the downsampling validation at z>1.5 was likewise reported via the mean chi-squared metric. While the absence of measurable shifts in the means, combined with the exact-lightcone verification, supports the claim of negligible impact, we agree that direct evidence on covariances and distributions would provide stronger support for emulation use cases. In the revision we will incorporate comparisons of the covariance matrices between the fiducial and downsampled runs and will clarify the precision to which the full HOS are reproduced. This will better justify the computational savings for large simulation campaigns. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct empirical benchmarks against independent high-resolution reference runs

full rationale

The paper reports numerical experiments that vary N_part, N_shells, and lightcone construction modes, then quantify accuracy via χ² differences on cosmic-shear HOS relative to a highest-resolution reference run (N_part=2048³, N_shells≈100). The exact-lightcone mode comparison is an independent runtime check on the same particle data, not a fit. No equations define a quantity in terms of itself, no parameters are fitted to the test statistics and then called predictions, and no load-bearing claims rest on self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The central results are therefore self-contained empirical statements about observed numerical convergence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard cosmological simulation assumptions (LCDM gravity, particle-mesh or similar N-body evolution) and the validity of the chosen chi-squared metric on mock shear statistics; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the tested numerical settings.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard flat LCDM cosmology governs the N-body evolution and lightcone projection.
    Invoked implicitly when generating the particle snapshots and lightcones for weak-lensing statistics.
  • domain assumption The chi-squared statistic computed on the suite of cosmic shear statistics under the adopted LSST-like survey mask and noise model is a faithful proxy for analysis accuracy.
    Used to benchmark all design choices; appears in the abstract as the accuracy metric.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5737 in / 1574 out tokens · 23845 ms · 2026-05-09T18:31:00.010355+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Ivezi´ c, S.M

    ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, S.M. Kahn, J.A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman et al., LSST: from science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products, The Astrophysical Journal873 (2019) 111

    2019

  2. [2]

    Mandelbaum, Weak lensing for precision cosmology, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics56(2018) 393

    R. Mandelbaum, Weak lensing for precision cosmology, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics56(2018) 393

    2018

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, M.J

    D.H. Weinberg, M.J. Mortonson, D.J. Eisenstein et al., Observational probes of cosmic acceleration, Physics Reports530(2013) 87

    2013

  4. [4]

    Amendola, S

    L. Amendola, S. Appleby, D. Bacon et al., Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite, Living Reviews in Relativity21(2018) 2

    2018

  5. [5]

    Heitmann et al., The Coyote Universe I: Precision Determination of the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum, The Astrophysical Journal715(2010) 104

    K. Heitmann et al., The Coyote Universe I: Precision Determination of the Nonlinear Matter Power Spectrum, The Astrophysical Journal715(2010) 104

    2010

  6. [6]

    Hilbert, A

    S. Hilbert, A. Barreira, G. Fabbian, P. Fosalba, C. Giocoli, S. Bose et al., The accuracy of weak lensing simulations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493(2020) 305

    2020

  7. [7]

    Wu and D

    H.-Y. Wu and D. Huterer, The impact of systematic uncertainties in N-body simulations on the precision cosmology from galaxy clustering: a halo model approach, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society434(2013) 2556. – 41 –

    2013

  8. [8]

    Y.-Y. Mao, E. Kovacs, K. Heitmann, T.D. Uram, A.J. Benson, D. Campbell et al., DESCQA: an automated validation framework for Synthetic Sky Catalogs, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series234(2018) 36

    2018

  9. [9]

    Jeffrey, L

    N. Jeffrey, L. Whiteway, M. Gatti, J. Williamson, J. Alsing, A. Porredon et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: likelihood-free, simulation-based wcdm inference with neural compression of weak-lensing map statistics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society536(2025) 1303

    2025

  10. [10]

    von Wietersheim-Kramsta, K

    M. von Wietersheim-Kramsta, K. Lin, N. Tessore, B. Joachimi, A. Loureiro, R. Reischke et al., KiDS-SBI: Simulation-based inference analysis of KiDS-1000 cosmic shear, Astronomy & Astrophysics694(2025) A223

    2025

  11. [11]

    Novaes, L

    C.P. Novaes, L. Thiele, J. Armijo, S. Cheng, J.A. Cowell, G.A. Marques et al., Cosmology from HSC Y1 weak lensing data with combined higher-order statistics and simulation-based inference, Physical Review D111(2025) 083510

    2025

  12. [12]

    J. Kwan, K. Heitmann, S. Habib, N. Padmanabhan, E. Lawrence, H. Finkel et al., Cosmic emulation: fast predictions for the galaxy power spectrum, The Astrophysical Journal810 (2015) 35

    2015

  13. [13]

    EuclidEmulator2–power spectrum emulation with massive neutrinos and self-consistent dark energy perturbations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society505(2021) 2840

    Euclid Collaboration, Euclid preparation: IX. EuclidEmulator2–power spectrum emulation with massive neutrinos and self-consistent dark energy perturbations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society505(2021) 2840

    2021

  14. [14]

    Angulo, M

    R.E. Angulo, M. Zennaro, S. Contreras, G. Arico, M. Pellejero-Iba˜ nez and J. St¨ ucker,The BACCO simulation project: exploiting the full power of large-scale structure for cosmology, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society507(2021) 5869

    2021

  15. [15]

    Spurio Mancini, D

    A. Spurio Mancini, D. Piras, J. Alsing, B. Joachimi and M.P. Hobson, CosmoPower: emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society511(2022) 1771

    2022

  16. [16]

    Lawrence, K

    E. Lawrence, K. Heitmann, J. Kwan, A. Upadhye, D. Bingham, S. Habib et al., The mira-titan universe. II. Matter power spectrum emulation, The Astrophysical Journal847(2017) 50

    2017

  17. [17]

    A. Mead, S. Brieden, T. Tr¨ oster and C. Heymans, HMcode-2020: Improved modelling of non-linear cosmological power spectra with baryonic feedback, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502(2021) 1401

    2020

  18. [18]

    Scaramella, J

    R. Scaramella, J. Amiaux, Y. Mellier, C. Burigana, C. Carvalho, J.-C. Cuillandre et al., Euclid preparation-I. The Euclid wide survey, Astronomy & Astrophysics662(2022) A112

    2022

  19. [19]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Physical Review D98(2018) 043526

    2018

  20. [20]

    The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing, Physical Review D105(2022) 023520

    2022

  21. [21]

    Hamana, M

    T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, S. Miyazaki, C. Hikage, M. Oguri, S. More et al., Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions with HSC survey first-year data, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan72(2020) 16

    2020

  22. [22]

    X. Li, T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, R. Dalal, R. Terasawa, M.M. Rau et al., Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions, Physical Review D108(2023) 123518

    2023

  23. [23]

    Asgari, C.-A

    M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt et al., KiDS-1000 cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics, Astronomy & Astrophysics645(2021) A104. – 42 –

    2021

  24. [24]

    KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey

    A.H. Wright, B. St¨ olzner, M. Asgari, M. Bilicki, B. Giblin, C. Heymans et al., KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19441 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Peebles, The large-scale structure of the universe, Princeton university press (1980)

    P. Peebles, The large-scale structure of the universe, Princeton university press (1980)

    1980

  26. [26]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gazta˜ naga and R. Scoccimarro, Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory, Physics Reports367(2002) 1

    2002

  27. [27]

    Takada and B

    M. Takada and B. Jain, Three-point correlations in weak lensing surveys: model predictions and applications, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society344(2003) 857

    2003

  28. [28]

    Harnois-Deraps, B

    J. Harnois-Deraps, B. Giblin and B. Joachimi, Cosmic shear covariance matrix in wCDM: Cosmology matters, Astronomy & Astrophysics631(2019) A160

    2019

  29. [29]

    Kacprzak, J

    T. Kacprzak, J. Fluri, A. Schneider, A. Refregier and J. Stadel, CosmoGridV1: a simulated wCDM theory prediction for map-level cosmological inference, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023) 050

    2023

  30. [30]

    Heydenreich, B

    S. Heydenreich, B. Br¨ uck, P. Burger, J. Harnois-D´ eraps, S. Unruh, T. Castro et al.,Persistent homology in cosmic shear-II. A tomographic analysis of DES-Y1, Astronomy & Astrophysics 667(2022) A125

    2022

  31. [31]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, N

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, N. Martinet, T. Castro, K. Dolag, B. Giblin, C. Heymans et al., Cosmic shear cosmology beyond two-point statistics: a combined peak count and correlation function analysis of DES-Y1, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society506(2021) 1623

    2021

  32. [32]

    Fluri, T

    J. Fluri, T. Kacprzak, A. Lucchi, A. Schneider, A. Refregier and T. Hofmann, Full wCDM analysis of KiDS-1000 weak lensing maps using deep learning, Physical Review D105(2022) 083518

    2022

  33. [33]

    Marques, J

    G.A. Marques, J. Liu, M. Shirasaki, L. Thiele, D. Grand´ on, K.M. Huffenberger et al., Cosmology from weak lensing peaks and minima with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey first-year data, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society528(2024) 4513

    2024

  34. [34]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, S

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, S. Heydenreich, B. Giblin, N. Martinet, T. Tr¨ oster, M. Asgari et al., KiDS-1000 and DES-Y1 combined: cosmology from peak count statistics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society534(2024) 3305

    2024

  35. [35]

    Takahashi, T

    R. Takahashi, T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, T. Namikawa, T. Nishimichi, K. Osato et al., Full-sky gravitational lensing simulation for large-area galaxy surveys and cosmic microwave background experiments, The Astrophysical Journal850(2017) 24

    2017

  36. [36]

    Castander, P

    F. Castander, P. Fosalba, J. Stadel, D. Potter, J. Carretero, P. Tallada-Cresp´ ı et al., Euclid-V. The Flagship galaxy mock catalogue: A comprehensive simulation for the Euclid mission, Astronomy & Astrophysics697(2025) A5

    2025

  37. [37]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.01669, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1809.01669

    R. Mandelbaum, T. Eifler, R. Hloˇ zek, T. Collett, E. Gawiser, D. Scolnic et al., The lsst dark energy science collaboration (desc) science requirements document, arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01669 (2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Matilla, S

    J.M.Z. Matilla, S. Waterval and Z. Haiman, Optimizing simulation parameters for weak lensing analyses involving non-Gaussian observables, The Astronomical Journal159(2020) 284

    2020

  39. [39]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, Physics Reports340(2001) 291

    2001

  40. [40]

    Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics78(2015) 086901

    M. Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics78(2015) 086901

    2015

  41. [41]

    Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, in Gravitational lensing: strong, weak and micro, pp

    P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, in Gravitational lensing: strong, weak and micro, pp. 269–451, Springer (2006)

    2006

  42. [42]

    Mellier, Probing the universe with weak lensing, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics37(1999) 127

    Y. Mellier, Probing the universe with weak lensing, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics37(1999) 127. – 43 –

    1999

  43. [43]

    Munshi, P

    D. Munshi, P. Valageas, L. Van Waerbeke and A. Heavens, Cosmology with weak lensing surveys, Physics Reports462(2008) 67

    2008

  44. [44]

    Chang, A

    C. Chang, A. Pujol, B. Mawdsley, D. Bacon, J. Elvin-Poole, P. Melchior et al., Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: curved-sky weak lensing mass map, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society475(2018) 3165

    2018

  45. [45]

    Limber, The analysis of counts of the extragalactic nebulae in terms of a fluctuating density field., Astrophysical Journal, vol

    D.N. Limber, The analysis of counts of the extragalactic nebulae in terms of a fluctuating density field., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 117, p. 134117(1953) 134

    1953

  46. [46]

    LoVerde and N

    M. LoVerde and N. Afshordi, Extended limber approximation, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology78(2008) 123506

    2008

  47. [47]

    Kitching, J

    T.D. Kitching, J. Alsing, A.F. Heavens, R. Jimenez, J.D. McEwen and L. Verde, The limits of cosmic shear, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society469(2017) 2737

    2017

  48. [48]

    Kilbinger, C

    M. Kilbinger, C. Heymans, M. Asgari, S. Joudaki, P. Schneider, P. Simon et al., Precision calculations of the cosmic shear power spectrum projection, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society472(2017) 2126

    2017

  49. [49]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, A

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, A. Amon, A. Choi, V. Demchenko, C. Heymans, A. Kannawadi et al., Cosmological simulations for combined-probe analyses: covariance and neighbour-exclusion bias, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society481(2018) 1337

    2018

  50. [50]

    Korytov, A

    D. Korytov, A. Hearin, E. Kovacs, P. Larsen, E. Rangel, J. Hollowed et al., CosmoDC2: A synthetic sky catalog for dark energy science with LSST, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series245(2019) 26

    2019

  51. [51]

    Habib, V

    S. Habib, V. Morozov, N. Frontiere, H. Finkel, A. Pope and K. Heitmann, HACC: Extreme scaling and performance across diverse architectures, in Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pp. 1–10, 2013

    2013

  52. [52]

    Heitmann, H

    K. Heitmann, H. Finkel, A. Pope, V. Morozov, N. Frontiere, S. Habib et al., The outer rim simulation: A path to many-core supercomputers, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series245(2019) 16

    2019

  53. [53]

    Heitmann, N

    K. Heitmann, N. Frontiere, E. Rangel, P. Larsen, A. Pope, I. Sultan et al., The last journey. I. an extreme-scale simulation on the Mira supercomputer, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series252(2021) 19

    2021

  54. [54]

    Frontiere, K

    N. Frontiere, K. Heitmann, E. Rangel, P. Larsen, A. Pope, I. Sultan et al., Farpoint: A High-resolution Cosmology Simulation at the Gigaparsec Scale, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series259(2022) 15

    2022

  55. [55]

    Heitmann, T

    K. Heitmann, T. Uram, N. Frontiere, S. Habib, A. Pope, S. Rizzi et al., The New Worlds Simulations: Large-scale Simulations across Three Cosmologies, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07276 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Heitmann, T.D

    K. Heitmann, T.D. Uram, H. Finkel, N. Frontiere, S. Habib, A. Pope et al., Hacc cosmological simulations: First data release, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series244(2019) 17

    2019

  57. [57]

    Uhlemann, O

    C. Uhlemann, O. Friedrich, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, A. Banerjee and S. Codis, Fisher for complements: extracting cosmology and neutrino mass from the counts-in-cells PDF, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society495(2020) 4006

    2020

  58. [58]

    Petkova, R.B

    M. Petkova, R.B. Metcalf and C. Giocoli, GLAMER Part II: Multiple Plane Gravitational Lensing, arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.1536 (2013)

    work page arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    Petri, Z

    A. Petri, Z. Haiman and M. May, Validity of the Born approximation for beyond Gaussian weak lensing observables, Physical Review D95(2017) 123503. – 44 –

    2017

  60. [60]

    Ferlito, C.T

    F. Ferlito, C.T. Davies, V. Springel, M. Reinecke, A. Greco, A.M. Delgado et al., Ray-tracing versus Born approximation in full-sky weak lensing simulations of the MillenniumTNG project, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society533(2024) 3209

    2024

  61. [61]

    Teyssier, S

    R. Teyssier, S. Pires, S. Prunet, D. Aubert, C. Pichon, A. Amara et al., Full-sky weak-lensing simulation with 70 billion particles, Astronomy & Astrophysics497(2009) 335

    2009

  62. [62]

    Sgier, A

    R. Sgier, A. R´ efr´ egier, A. Amara and A. Nicola,Fast generation of covariance matrices for weak lensing, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(2019) 044

    2019

  63. [63]

    Vecchi, D

    F. Vecchi, D. Harvey, J. Nightingale, M. Schaller, J. Schaye and E. Tregidga, Impact of line of sight structure on weak lensing observables of galaxy clusters, Astronomy & Astrophysics703 (2025) A45

    2025

  64. [64]

    Ferlito, V

    F. Ferlito, V. Springel, C.T. Davies, C. Hern´ andez-Aguayo, R. Pakmor, M. Barrera et al., The MillenniumTNG Project: the impact of baryons and massive neutrinos on high-resolution weak gravitational lensing convergence maps, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 524(2023) 5591

    2023

  65. [65]

    Harnois-D´ eraps and L

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps and L. van Waerbeke,Simulations of weak gravitational lensing–II. Including finite support effects in cosmic shear covariance matrices, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society450(2015) 2857

    2015

  66. [66]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, C

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, C. Hernandez-Aguayo, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, C. Arnold, B. Li, C.T. Davies et al., mglens: Modified gravity weak lensing simulations for emulation-based cosmological inference, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society525(2023) 6336

    2023

  67. [67]

    Angulo and A

    R.E. Angulo and A. Pontzen, Cosmological N-body simulations with suppressed variance, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters462(2016) L1

    2016

  68. [68]

    Sirko, Initial conditions to cosmological N-Body simulations, or, how to run an ensemble of simulations, The Astrophysical Journal634(2005) 728

    E. Sirko, Initial conditions to cosmological N-Body simulations, or, how to run an ensemble of simulations, The Astrophysical Journal634(2005) 728

    2005

  69. [69]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, U.-L

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, U.-L. Pen, I.T. Iliev, H. Merz, J. Emberson and V. Desjacques, High-performance P3M N-body code: CUBEP3M, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society436(2013) 540

    2013

  70. [70]

    Chisari, D

    N.E. Chisari, D. Alonso, E. Krause, C.D. Leonard, P. Bull, J. Neveu et al., Core cosmology library: Precision cosmological predictions for LSST, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series242(2019) 2

    2019

  71. [71]

    Smith, J.A

    R.E. Smith, J.A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. White, C. Frenk, F. Pearce et al., Stable clustering, the halo model and non-linear cosmological power spectra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society341(2003) 1311

    2003

  72. [72]

    Takahashi, M

    R. Takahashi, M. Sato, T. Nishimichi, A. Taruya and M. Oguri, Revising the halofit model for the nonlinear matter power spectrum, The Astrophysical Journal761(2012) 152

    2012

  73. [73]

    Mead, J.A

    A.J. Mead, J.A. Peacock, C. Heymans, S. Joudaki and A.F. Heavens, An accurate halo model for fitting non-linear cosmological power spectra and baryonic feedback models, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society454(2015) 1958

    2015

  74. [74]

    Knox, Determination of inflationary observables by cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments, Physical Review D52(1995) 4307

    L. Knox, Determination of inflationary observables by cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments, Physical Review D52(1995) 4307

    1995

  75. [75]

    Chang, M

    C. Chang, M. Jarvis, B. Jain, S. Kahn, D. Kirkby, A. Connolly et al., The effective number density of galaxies for weak lensing measurements in the LSST project, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society434(2013) 2121

    2013

  76. [76]

    Gatti, B

    M. Gatti, B. Jain, C. Chang, M. Raveri, D. Z¨ urcher, L. Secco et al., Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmology with moments of weak lensing mass maps, Physical Review D106(2022) 083509. – 45 –

    2022

  77. [77]

    Smith, S

    A. Smith, S. Cole, C. Grove, P. Norberg and P. Zarrouk, A light-cone catalogue from the Millennium-XXL simulation: improved spatial interpolation and colour distributions for the DESI BGS, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516(2022) 4529

    2022

  78. [78]

    Smith, S

    A. Smith, S. Cole, C. Grove, P. Norberg and P. Zarrouk, Solving small-scale clustering problems in approximate light-cone mocks, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 516(2022) 1062

    2022

  79. [79]

    Moran, K

    K.R. Moran, K. Heitmann, E. Lawrence, S. Habib, D. Bingham, A. Upadhye et al., The Mira–Titan Universe–IV. High-precision power spectrum emulation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society520(2023) 3443

    2023

  80. [80]

    A. Bera, J. Harnois-D´ eraps et al., 4×3 Point Correlation Functions in Galaxy Surveys: Impact of Baryonic Feedback, in prep (2026)

    2026

Showing first 80 references.