pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26210 · v1 · pith:VHEZY5GRnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Field-level multi-tracers simulation-based inference of cosmological parameters from 3D maps

Giulio Scelfo , Satvik Mishra , Mauro Rigo , Roberto Trotta , Matteo Viel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 20:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords simulation-based inferencefield-level inferencemulti-tracer analysisneutral hydrogen intensity mappinggalaxy number countscosmological parameterslarge-scale structureneural emulators
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining galaxy and HI 3D maps with simulation-based inference improves cosmological constraints by factors of 2 to 7 over single tracers.

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

The paper presents a simulation-based inference pipeline that uses neural emulators to produce galaxy number count and neutral hydrogen intensity maps from fast dark-matter simulations. It demonstrates that joint analysis of the two tracers extracts substantially more information about matter density and fluctuation amplitude than either tracer alone. Field-level inference on three-dimensional maps yields roughly three times tighter constraints than power-spectrum summaries, with the gains persisting after marginalizing over astrophysical uncertainties.

Core claim

A proof-of-concept SBI pipeline shows that multi-tracer field-level inference from 3D galaxy and HI maps constrains the cosmological parameters Omega_m and sigma_8 with a figure-of-merit improvement of 2 to 7 relative to single-tracer cases and a consistent factor of about 3 relative to power-spectrum analyses; three-dimensional maps produce the most precise and well-calibrated posteriors, and the precision gain remains robust when astrophysical parameters are marginalized over.

What carries the argument

Neural emulators trained on hydrodynamical simulations that generate galaxy and HI maps from approximate dark-matter simulations, paired with neural posterior estimation to perform field-level inference while marginalizing astrophysics.

If this is right

  • Joint galaxy plus HI analysis improves the joint figure of merit on cosmological parameters by a factor between 2 and 7 depending on tracer and configuration.
  • Field-level inference on 3D maps supplies an additional factor-of-three gain in constraining power over power-spectrum summaries.
  • Three-dimensional maps produce the most precise and best-calibrated posteriors among the representations tested.
  • The reported precision gains hold after marginalization over astrophysical parameters.
  • The same pipeline structure can be applied to upcoming surveys once realistic survey effects and emulator accuracy are incorporated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Field-level multi-tracer methods may become the default route for extracting maximum information from future large-scale-structure surveys.
  • Similar emulator-based SBI pipelines could be extended to other cosmological probes or to models beyond Lambda-CDM if the underlying simulations are broadened.
  • The factor-of-three gain from 3D maps over summaries suggests that dimensionality-reduction steps in current analyses discard substantial cosmological signal.

Load-bearing premise

The neural emulators trained on full hydrodynamical simulations accurately reproduce the galaxy and HI maps from approximate dark matter simulations without introducing biases that affect the cosmological inference when marginalizing over astrophysical effects.

What would settle it

Run the full pipeline on a set of hydrodynamical simulations with known cosmologies and check whether the recovered posterior means and widths for Omega_m and sigma_8 agree with the true values within the expected statistical scatter.

read the original abstract

Extracting maximum cosmological information from current and upcoming large-scale structure data requires going beyond summary statistics as currently used in likelihood-based inference. Simulation-Based Inference (SBI) promises to enable the exploitation of field-level information and the rich physics of modern hydrodynamical simulations. We develop a proof-of-concept SBI pipeline to explore its potential to constrain the cosmological parameters $\{\Omega_{\rm m}, \sigma_8\}$ from galaxy number counts, neutral hydrogen (HI) intensity mapping and their combination. We use neural emulators trained on full hydrodynamical simulations to generate galaxy and HI maps from fast, approximate dark matter simulations. Combined with neural posterior estimation, this enables the estimation of cosmological parameters while marginalizing over astrophysical effects. We perform inference both on the power spectrum and on representations derived from field-level 2D or 3D maps, comparing results from each probe and the combination of both tracers, and assessing the impact of data compression and multi-tracers information on cosmological constraints. Combining galaxy and HI fields improves constraints with respect to single-tracer cases by a factor 2 to 7 in terms of a Figure of Merit describing the joint precision on cosmological parameters, depending on the tracer/configuration. Moving from summary statistics to field-level inference leads to a consistent gain in constraining power of about a factor 3, with 3D maps providing the most precise and well-calibrated posteriors. This gain in precision is robust even when astrophysical parameters are marginalized over. Further developments (including realistic survey effects and improvements in emulators' faithfulness) will enable the application of this analysis pipeline to upcoming surveys.

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 presents a proof-of-concept simulation-based inference (SBI) pipeline that uses neural emulators trained on full hydrodynamical simulations to generate galaxy number counts and HI intensity maps from approximate dark-matter-only simulations. It performs neural posterior estimation of cosmological parameters {Ωm, σ8} while marginalizing astrophysical nuisance parameters, comparing power-spectrum summary statistics against field-level 2D and 3D map representations for single-tracer and multi-tracer (galaxy+HI) cases. The central claims are that multi-tracer combinations improve the Figure of Merit by factors of 2–7 and that field-level inference (especially 3D) yields an additional consistent factor ~3 gain in precision, with posteriors remaining well-calibrated even after astrophysical marginalization.

Significance. If the emulator fidelity holds, the work demonstrates a practical route to incorporating the rich physics of hydrodynamical simulations into field-level cosmological inference without prohibitive computational cost, highlighting the value of multi-tracer combinations and full 3D information. The explicit marginalization over astrophysical parameters and the comparison across summary-statistic versus field-level representations are strengths that address a key limitation of traditional analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (neural emulator training and validation)] Emulator validation (Methods section on neural emulators): No quantitative bounds are reported on emulator residuals (e.g., power-spectrum or bispectrum differences on held-out hydrodynamical runs, or coverage diagnostics when the emulator is used inside the SBI pipeline). Because the quoted gains of factors 2–7 (multi-tracer) and ~3 (field-level) rest on the assumption that any emulator mismatch is fully absorbed into the astrophysical nuisance parameters without biasing Ωm or σ8, this omission is load-bearing for the central claims.
  2. [Results (field-level 3D maps and calibration)] Posterior calibration tests (Results section on 3D map inference): The statement that 3D maps provide the “most precise and well-calibrated posteriors” is not supported by explicit coverage or calibration diagnostics (e.g., rank statistics or posterior predictive checks) performed on mocks that include realistic emulator error. Without such tests, it is unclear whether the reported calibration survives the marginalization step.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods (data compression)] The abstract and main text refer to “data compression” choices without specifying the exact compression method or its dimensionality reduction; a brief description or reference would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figures (posterior plots)] Figure captions for the posterior contours should explicitly state whether the displayed contours include or exclude the astrophysical nuisance parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Emulator validation (Methods section on neural emulators): No quantitative bounds are reported on emulator residuals (e.g., power-spectrum or bispectrum differences on held-out hydrodynamical runs, or coverage diagnostics when the emulator is used inside the SBI pipeline). Because the quoted gains of factors 2–7 (multi-tracer) and ~3 (field-level) rest on the assumption that any emulator mismatch is fully absorbed into the astrophysical nuisance parameters without biasing Ωm or σ8, this omission is load-bearing for the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative validation of emulator residuals is necessary to support the reported gains. In the revised manuscript we will add power-spectrum and bispectrum residual statistics on held-out hydrodynamical runs together with coverage diagnostics for the full SBI pipeline that include realistic emulator mismatch. These additions will directly test whether residuals are absorbed by the astrophysical nuisance parameters without biasing the cosmological posteriors. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Posterior calibration tests (Results section on 3D map inference): The statement that 3D maps provide the “most precise and well-calibrated posteriors” is not supported by explicit coverage or calibration diagnostics (e.g., rank statistics or posterior predictive checks) performed on mocks that include realistic emulator error. Without such tests, it is unclear whether the reported calibration survives the marginalization step.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript does not present explicit rank statistics or posterior predictive checks performed on mocks that incorporate emulator error. In the revised version we will add these calibration diagnostics, performed after marginalization over astrophysical parameters, to substantiate the claim that the 3D-map posteriors remain well-calibrated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external simulations and standard SBI techniques

full rationale

The paper's pipeline trains neural emulators on full hydrodynamical simulations to produce galaxy and HI maps from approximate DM-only runs, then applies neural posterior estimation while marginalizing astrophysical parameters. Claims of factor 2-7 gains from multi-tracer combinations and factor ~3 from field-level over summary statistics are obtained by direct comparison of posteriors generated within this fixed pipeline. No step reduces by construction to a fitted input renamed as prediction, no self-definitional loop appears in the emulator training or inference steps, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or ansatz choices. The central results are therefore self-contained against external simulation benchmarks rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract does not specify any free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the approach relies on standard neural network training and simulation-based methods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5836 in / 1299 out tokens · 42394 ms · 2026-06-29T20:11:35.993616+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

129 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission

    Y. Mellier, A. Abdurroúf, J. A. Barroso, A. Achúcarro, J. Adamek, R. Adam, G. E. Addison, N. Aghanim, M. Aguena, V. Ajani,et al., “Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission”, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products

    Ž. Ivezićet al., “LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products”,The Astrophysical Journal873no. 2, (Mar, 2019) 111

    2019

  3. [3]

    Advancing astrophysics with the square kilometre array

    R. Braun, T. L. Bourke, J. A. Green, E. Keane, and J. Wagg, “Advancing astrophysics with the square kilometre array”, inAdvancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, vol. 215, p. 174, SISSA Medialab. 2015

    2015

  4. [4]

    The DESI experiment part I: Science, targeting, and survey design

    A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. E. Allen, C. A. Prieto, J. Annis, S. Bailey, C. Balland, O. Ballester,et al., “The DESI experiment part I: Science, targeting, and survey design”,arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00036 (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    The camels project: Cosmology and astrophysics with machine-learning simulations

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro, D. Anglés-Alcázar, S. Genel, D. N. Spergel, R. S. Somerville, R. Dave, A. Pillepich, L. Hernquist, D. Nelson, P. Torrey,et al., “The camels project: Cosmology and astrophysics with machine-learning simulations”,The Astrophysical Journal915no. 1, (2021) 71

    2021

  6. [6]

    The Quijote Simulations

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro, C. Hahn, E. Massara, A. Banerjee, A. M. Delgado, D. K. Ramanah, T. Charnock, E. Giusarma, Y. Li, E. Allys, A. Brochard, C. Uhlemann, C.-T. Chiang, S. He, A. Pisani, A. Obuljen, Y. Feng, E. Castorina, G. Contardo, C. D. Kreisch, A. Nicola, J. Alsing, R. Scoccimarro, L. Verde, M. Viel, S. Ho, S. Mallat, B. Wandelt, and D. N. Spergel,...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    The DREAMS Project: A New Suite of 1,024 Simulations to Contextualize the Milky Way and Assess Physics Uncertainties

    J. C. Roseet al., “The DREAMS Project: A New Suite of 1,024 Simulations to Contextualize the Milky Way and Assess Physics Uncertainties”,arXiv:2512.00148 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Brooks, A

    S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, and X.-L. Meng,Handbook of markov chain monte carlo. CRC press, 2011

    2011

  9. [9]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology

    R. Trotta, “Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology”,Contemp. Phys.49(2008) 71–104,arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

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

    Bartlett, Deaglan J., Wandelt, Benjamin D., Zennaro, Matteo, Ferreira, Pedro G., and Desmond, Harry, “SYREN-HALOFIT: A fast, interpretable, high-precision formula for the nonlinear matter power spectrum”,A&A686(2024) A150. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202449854

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449854 2024

  11. [11]

    On the accuracy and precision of correlation functions and field-level inference in cosmology

    F. Leclercq and A. Heavens, “On the accuracy and precision of correlation functions and field-level inference in cosmology”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters506no. 1, (09, 2021) L85–L90, https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article-pdf/506/1/L85/54638639/slab081.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slab081

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab081 2021

  12. [12]

    Lifting weak lensing degeneracies with a field-based likelihood

    N. Porqueres, A. Heavens, D. Mortlock, and G. Lavaux, “Lifting weak lensing degeneracies with a field-based likelihood”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509no. 3, (01, 2022) 3194–3202, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/509/3/3194/41284875/stab3234.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab3234

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3234 2022

  13. [13]

    Likelihood non-Gaussianity in large-scale structure analyses

    C. Hahn, F. Beutler, M. Sinha, A. Berlind, S. Ho, and D. W. Hogg, “Likelihood non-Gaussianity in large-scale structure analyses”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society485no. 2, (05, 2019) 2956–2969, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/485/2/2956/28078854/stz558.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz558. – 33 –

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz558 2019

  14. [14]

    Sufficiency of a Gaussian power spectrum likelihood for accurate cosmology from upcoming weak lensing surveys

    R. E. Upham, M. L. Brown, and L. Whittaker, “Sufficiency of a Gaussian power spectrum likelihood for accurate cosmology from upcoming weak lensing surveys”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society503no. 2, (05, 2021) 1999–2013, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/503/2/1999/36678227/stab522.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab522

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab522 2021

  15. [15]

    ShapeFit: extracting the power spectrum shape information in galaxy surveys beyond BAO and RSD

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Marín, and L. Verde, “ShapeFit: extracting the power spectrum shape information in galaxy surveys beyond BAO and RSD”,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021no. 12, (Dec, 2021) 054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/054

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/054 2021

  16. [16]

    The frontier of simulation-based inference

    K. Cranmer, J. Brehmer, and G. Louppe, “The frontier of simulation-based inference”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117no. 48, (2020) 30055–30062, https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1912789117. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1912789117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1912789117 2020

  17. [17]

    Benchmarking Simulation-Based Inference

    J.-M. Lueckmann, J. Boelts, D. Greenberg, P. Goncalves, and J. Macke, “Benchmarking Simulation-Based Inference”, inProceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, A. Banerjee and K. Fukumizu, eds., vol. 130 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 343–351. PMLR, 13–15 apr, 2021. https://proceedings.mlr.p...

    2021

  18. [18]

    Large-scale dark matter simulations

    R. E. Angulo and O. Hahn, “Large-scale dark matter simulations”,Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics8no. 1, (Dec., 2022) 1.http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.05165. arXiv:2112.05165 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Likelihood-free inference with neural compression of DES SV weak lensing map statistics

    N. Jeffrey, J. Alsing, and F. Lanusse, “Likelihood-free inference with neural compression of DES SV weak lensing map statistics”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society501 no. 1, (Dec., 2020) 954–969.http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.08459. arXiv:2009.08459 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    SimSIMS: Simulation-based Supernova Ia Model Selection with thousands of latent variables

    K. Karchev, R. Trotta, and C. Weniger, “SimSIMS: Simulation-based Supernova Ia Model Selection with thousands of latent variables”, 2023.https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.15650

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Bayesian simulation-based inference for cosmological initial conditions

    F. List, N. A. Montel, and C. Weniger, “Bayesian simulation-based inference for cosmological initial conditions”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19910 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Simulation-based inference of the sky-averaged 21-cm signal from CD-EoR with REACH

    A. Saxena, P. D. Meerburg, C. Weniger, E. d. L. Acedo, and W. Handley, “Simulation-based inference of the sky-averaged 21-cm signal from CD-EoR with REACH”,RAS Techniquesand Instruments3no. 1, (Jan., 2024) 724–736.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rasti/rzae047

    work page doi:10.1093/rasti/rzae047 2024

  23. [23]

    Simulation-based population inference of LISA’s Galactic binaries: Bypassing the global fit

    R. Srinivasan, E. Barausse, N. Korsakova, and R. Trotta, “Simulation-based population inference of LISA’s Galactic binaries: Bypassing the global fit”,Phys. Rev. D112no. 10, (2025) 103043,arXiv:2506.22543 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Near-instantaneous Atmospheric Retrievals and Model Comparison with FASTER

    A. Lueber, K. Karchev, C. Fisher, M. Heim, R. Trotta, and K. Heng, “Near-instantaneous Atmospheric Retrievals and Model Comparison with FASTER”,The Astrophysical Journal Letters984no. 1, (Apr, 2025) L32.https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/adc7aa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc7aa 2025

  25. [25]

    Simulation-based inference from the Lyman-alpha forest 1D power spectrum with CAMELS

    F. Sinigaglia, P. Iglesias-Navarro, and M. Viel, “Simulation-based inference from the Lyman-alpha forest 1D power spectrum with CAMELS”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.13011 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Beyond power spectrum to unveil systematics on Hi intensity maps

    P. Gorbatchev, J.-L. Starck, S. Camera, and M. Spinelli, “Beyond power spectrum to unveil systematics on Hi intensity maps”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.08895 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Simbig: Field-level simulation-based inference of galaxy clustering

    P. Lemos, L. Parker, C. Hahn, S. Ho, M. Eickenberg, J. Hou, E. Massara, C. Modi, A. M. Dizgah, B. R.-S. Blancard,et al., “Simbig: Field-level simulation-based inference of galaxy clustering”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15256 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    EFTofLSS meets simulation-based inference:σ8 from biased tracers

    B. Tucci and F. Schmidt, “EFTofLSS meets simulation-based inference:σ8 from biased tracers”,JCAP2024no. 5, (May, 2024) 063,arXiv:2310.03741 [astro-ph.CO]. – 34 –

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Mean-Field Simulation-Based Inference for Cosmological Initial Conditions

    O. Savchenko, F. List, G. F. Abellán, N. A. Montel, and C. Weniger, “Mean-Field Simulation-Based Inference for Cosmological Initial Conditions”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15808 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Fast sampling of cosmological initial conditions with Gaussian neural posterior estimation

    O. Savchenko, G. F. Abellán, F. List, N. A. Montel, and C. Weniger, “Fast sampling of cosmological initial conditions with Gaussian neural posterior estimation”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03139 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Simulation-based inference benchmark for weak lensing cosmology

    J. Zeghal, D. Lanzieri, F. Lanusse, A. Boucaud, G. Louppe, E. Aubourg, and A. E. Bayer, “Simulation-based inference benchmark for weak lensing cosmology”,Astronomy & Astrophysics699(July, 2025) A327.http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452410

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452410 2025

  32. [32]

    How many simulations do we need for simulation-based inference in cosmology?

    A. Bairagi, B. Wandelt, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, “How many simulations do we need for simulation-based inference in cosmology?”, 2025.https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13755

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Cosmological N-body simulations: a challenge for scalable generative models

    N. Perraudin, A. Srivastava, A. Lucchi, T. Kacprzak, T. Hofmann, and A. Réfrégier, “Cosmological N-body simulations: a challenge for scalable generative models”, 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.05519

    arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Painting with baryons: augmenting N-body simulations with gas using deep generative models

    T. Tröster, C. Ferguson, J. Harnois-Déraps, and I. G. McCarthy, “Painting with baryons: augmenting N-body simulations with gas using deep generative models”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters487no. 1, (07, 2019) L24–L29. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz075

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz075 2019

  35. [35]

    AI-assisted superresolution cosmological simulations

    Y. Li, Y. Ni, R. A. C. Croft, T. Di Matteo, S. Bird, and Y. Feng, “AI-assisted superresolution cosmological simulations”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118no. 19, (May,

  36. [36]

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022038118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2022038118

  37. [37]

    Fast, High-fidelity Lyα Forests with Convolutional Neural Networks

    P. Harrington, M. Mustafa, M. Dornfest, B. Horowitz, and Z. Lukić, “Fast, High-fidelity Lyα Forests with Convolutional Neural Networks”,The Astrophysical Journal929no. 2, (Apr,

  38. [38]

    160.https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac5faa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5faa

  39. [39]

    hyphy: Deep Generative Conditional Posterior Mapping of Hydrodynamical Physics

    B. Horowitz, M. Dornfest, Z. Lukić, and P. Harrington, “hyphy: Deep Generative Conditional Posterior Mapping of Hydrodynamical Physics”,The Astrophysical Journal941no. 1, (Dec,

  40. [40]

    42.https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ea7

  41. [41]

    Cosmological field emulation and parameter inference with diffusion models

    N. Mudur, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, and D. P. Finkbeiner, “Cosmological field emulation and parameter inference with diffusion models”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07534 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Field-level Neural Network Emulator for Cosmological N-body Simulations

    D. Jamieson, Y. Li, R. A. d. Oliveira, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, S. Ho, and D. N. Spergel, “Field-level Neural Network Emulator for Cosmological N-body Simulations”,The Astrophysical Journal952no. 2, (July, 2023) 145. https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acdb6c. Publisher: The American Astronomical Society

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdb6c 2023

  43. [43]

    and Prelogovic, David and Qin, Yuxiang and Trotta, Roberto

    D. Breitman, A. Mesinger, S. G. Murray, D. Prelogović, Y. Qin, and R. Trotta, “<scp>21cmemu</scp>: an emulator of <scp>21cmfast</scp> summary observables”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527no. 4, (Dec., 2023) 9833–9852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3849

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3849 2023

  44. [45]

    HIFlow: Generating Diverse HI Maps and Inferring Cosmology while Marginalizing over Astrophysics using Normalizing Flows

    S. Hassan, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, B. Wandelt, D. N. Spergel, D. Anglés-Alcázar, S. Genel, M. Cranmer, G. L. Bryan, R. Davé, R. S. Somerville, M. Eickenberg, D. Narayanan, S. Ho, and S. Andrianomena, “HIFlow: Generating Diverse HI Maps and Inferring Cosmology while Marginalizing over Astrophysics using Normalizing Flows”,The Astrophysical Journal937 no. 2...

    arXiv 2022

  45. [46]

    Emulating cosmological multifields with generative adversarial networks

    S. Andrianomena, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, and S. Hassan, “Emulating cosmological multifields with generative adversarial networks”, Nov., 2022. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv221105000A. Publication Title: arXiv e-prints ADS Bibcode: 2022arXiv221105000A

    2022

  46. [47]

    A field-level emulator for modelling baryonic effects across hydrodynamic simulations

    D. Sharma, B. Dai, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, and U. Seljak, “A field-level emulator for modelling baryonic effects across hydrodynamic simulations”,MNRAS538no. 3, (Apr., 2025) 1415–1426,arXiv:2401.15891 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf341

    M. Bernardini, R. Feldmann, J. Gensior, D. Anglés-Alcázar, L. Bassini, R. Bieri, E. Cenci, L. Tortora, and C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, “EMBER-2: emulating baryons from dark matter across cosmic time with deep modulation networks”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society538no. 2, (02, 2025) 1201–1215, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/538/2/12...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf341 2025

  48. [49]

    Cosmological multifield emulator

    S. Andrianomena, S. Hassan, and F. Villaescusa-Navarro, “Cosmological multifield emulator”, 2024.https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10997

    arXiv 2024

  49. [50]

    Large, fast, and accurate HI intensity maps with latent overlap diffusion

    S. Mishra, R. Trotta, and M. Viel, “Large, fast, and accurate HI intensity maps with latent overlap diffusion”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society545no. 3, (11, 2025) staf2071.https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:279261186

    2025

  50. [51]

    Conditional Diffusion-Flow models for generating 3D cosmic density fields: applications to f(R) cosmologies

    J. K. Riveros, P. A. Saavedra, H. J. Hortúa, J. E. García-Farieta, and I. Olier, “Conditional Diffusion-Flow models for generating 3D cosmic density fields: applications to f(R) cosmologies”,Machine Learning: Science and Technology6no. 3, (Aug, 2025) 035031. https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/adf8b1

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/adf8b1 2025

  51. [52]

    BaryonBridge: Stochastic Interpolant Model for Fast Hydrodynamical Simulations

    B. Horowitz, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, and O. Yehia, “BaryonBridge: Stochastic Interpolant Model for Fast Hydrodynamical Simulations”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19224 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    Cosmo-FOLD: Fast generation and upscaling of field-level cosmological maps with overlap latent diffusion

    S. Mishra, R. Trotta, and M. Viel, “Cosmo-FOLD: Fast generation and upscaling of field-level cosmological maps with overlap latent diffusion”,arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.14377 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  53. [54]

    Variational autoencoder for generating realisticN-body simulations for dark matter halos

    J. Chacón-Lavanderos, I. Gómez-Vargas, R. Menchaca-Mendez, and J. A. Vázquez, “Variational autoencoder for generating realisticN-body simulations for dark matter halos”, Phys. Rev. D113(Mar, 2026) 063520.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/b6lj-rlff

    work page doi:10.1103/b6lj-rlff 2026

  54. [55]

    Superresolution emulation of large cosmological fields with a 3D conditional diffusion model

    A. Rouhiainen, M. Münchmeyer, G. Shiu, M. Gira, and K. Lee, “Superresolution emulation of large cosmological fields with a 3D conditional diffusion model”,Phys. Rev. D109(Jun,

  55. [56]

    123536.https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123536

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123536

  56. [57]

    Learning effective physical laws for generating cosmological hydrodynamics with Lagrangian deep learning

    B. Dai and U. Seljak, “Learning effective physical laws for generating cosmological hydrodynamics with Lagrangian deep learning”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118no. 16, (2021) e2020324118. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2020324118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2020324118 2021

  57. [58]

    jerald: high-fidelity dark matter, stellar mass, and neutral hydrogen maps from fast N-body simulations

    M. Rigo, R. Trotta, and M. Viel, “jerald: high-fidelity dark matter, stellar mass, and neutral hydrogen maps from fast N-body simulations”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society541no. 1, (07, 2025) 166–178, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/541/1/166/63478802/staf948.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staf948

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf948 2025

  58. [59]

    Field-level Comparison and Robustness Analysis of Cosmological N-body Simulations

    A. E. Bayer, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, S. Sharief, R. Teyssier, L. H. Garrison, L. Perreault-Levasseur, G. L. Bryan, M. Gatti, and E. Visbal, “Field-level Comparison and Robustness Analysis of Cosmological N-body Simulations”,The Astrophysical Journal989 no. 2, (Aug, 2025) 207.https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/adef4e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adef4e 2025

  59. [60]

    SKA weak lensing– II. Simulated performance and survey design considerations

    A. Bonaldi, I. Harrison, S. Camera, and M. L. Brown, “SKA weak lensing– II. Simulated performance and survey design considerations”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society463no. 4, (08, 2016) 3686–3698. – 36 –

    2016

  60. [61]

    SKA weak lensing – III. Added value of multiwavelength synergies for the mitigation of systematics

    S. Camera, I. Harrison, A. Bonaldi, and M. L. Brown, “SKA weak lensing – III. Added value of multiwavelength synergies for the mitigation of systematics”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society464no. 4, (10, 2016) 4747–4760, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/464/4/4747/8313242/stw2688.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2688 2016

  61. [62]

    Quasar-galaxy and AGN-galaxy cross-correlations

    H. J. Martínez, M. E. Merchán, C. A. Valotto, and D. G. Lambas, “Quasar-galaxy and AGN-galaxy cross-correlations”,The Astrophysical Journal514no. 2, (1999) 558

    1999

  62. [63]

    Quasar—galaxy and galaxy—galaxy cross-correlations: model predictions with realistic galaxies

    B. Jain, R. Scranton, and R. K. Sheth, “Quasar—galaxy and galaxy—galaxy cross-correlations: model predictions with realistic galaxies”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society345no. 1, (10, 2003) 62–70

    2003

  63. [64]

    The cross-correlation between galaxies and groups: probing the galaxy distribution in and around dark matter haloes

    X. Yang, H. J. Mo, F. C. van den Bosch, S. M. Weinmann, C. Li, and Y. P. Jing, “The cross-correlation between galaxies and groups: probing the galaxy distribution in and around dark matter haloes”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society362no. 2, (09, 2005) 711–726

    2005

  64. [65]

    Cross-correlation of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the importance of non-Poissonian shot noise

    K. Paech, N. Hamaus, B. Hoyle, M. Costanzi, T. Giannantonio, S. Hagstotz, G. Sauerwein, and J. Weller, “Cross-correlation of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the importance of non-Poissonian shot noise”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society470no. 3, (06, 2017) 2566–2577

    2017

  65. [66]

    First year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe observations: dark energy induced correlation with radio sources

    M. R. Nolta, E. Wright, L. Page, C. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. Meyer,et al., “First year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe observations: dark energy induced correlation with radio sources”,The Astrophysical Journal608no. 1, (2004) 10

    2004

  66. [67]

    Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure. I. Integrated Sachs-Wolfe tomography and cosmological implications

    S. Ho, C. Hirata, N. Padmanabhan, U. Seljak, and N. Bahcall, “Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure. I. Integrated Sachs-Wolfe tomography and cosmological implications”, Physical Review D78no. 4, (2008) 043519

    2008

  67. [68]

    Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure. II. Weak lensing

    C. M. Hirata, S. Ho, N. Padmanabhan, U. Seljak, and N. A. Bahcall, “Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure. II. Weak lensing”,Physical Review D78no. 4, (2008) 043520

    2008

  68. [69]

    A reassessment of the evidence of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect through the WMAP-NVSS correlation

    A. Raccanelli, A. Bonaldi, M. Negrello, S. Matarrese, G. Tormen, and G. De Zotti, “A reassessment of the evidence of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect through the WMAP-NVSS correlation”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society386no. 4, (2008) 2161–2166, arXiv:0802.0084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  69. [70]

    Cosmological measurements with forthcoming radio continuum surveys

    A. Raccanelli, G.-B. Zhao, D. J. Bacon, M. J. Jarvis, W. J. Percival, R. P. Norris, H. Röttgering, F. B. Abdalla, C. M. Cress, J.-C. Kubwimana, S. Lindsay, R. C. Nichol, M. G. Santos, and D. J. Schwarz, “Cosmological measurements with forthcoming radio continuum surveys”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society424no. 2, (Aug., 2012) 801–819, arXi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [71]

    Probing primordial non-Gaussianity via iSW measurements with SKA continuum surveys

    A. Raccanelli, O. Doré, D. J. Bacon, R. Maartens, M. G. Santos, S. Camera, T. M. Davis, M. J. Drinkwater, M. Jarvis, R. Norris, and D. Parkinson, “Probing primordial non-Gaussianity via iSW measurements with SKA continuum surveys”,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015no. 1, (Jan., 2015) 042,arXiv:1406.0010 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [72]

    Cross-correlation between the CMB lensing potential measured by Planck and high-z sub-mm galaxies detected by the Herschel-ATLAS survey

    TheHerschel A TLAS, F. Bianchiniet al., “Cross-correlation between the CMB lensing potential measured by Planck and high-z sub-mm galaxies detected by the Herschel-ATLAS survey”,Astrophys. J.802no. 1, (2015) 64,arXiv:1410.4502 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [73]

    Cross-correlation between cosmological and astrophysical datasets: the Planck and Herschel case

    F. Bianchini and A. Lapi, “Cross-correlation between cosmological and astrophysical datasets: the Planck and Herschel case”,IAU Symp.306(2014) 202–205

    2014

  73. [74]

    Toward a tomographic analysis of the cross-correlation between Planck CMB lensing and H-ATLAS galaxies

    F. Bianchiniet al., “Toward a tomographic analysis of the cross-correlation between Planck CMB lensing and H-ATLAS galaxies”,Astrophys. J.825no. 1, (2016) 24,arXiv:1511.05116 [astro-ph.CO]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [75]

    Multimessenger tests of gravity with weakly lensed gravitational waves

    S. Mukherjee, B. D. Wandelt, and J. Silk, “Multimessenger tests of gravity with weakly lensed gravitational waves”,Phys. Rev. D101(May, 2020) 103509

    2020

  75. [76]

    Recovering redshift distributions with cross-correlations: pushing the boundaries

    S. J. Schmidt, B. Ménard, R. Scranton, C. Morrison, and C. K. McBride, “Recovering redshift distributions with cross-correlations: pushing the boundaries”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society431no. 4, (04, 2013) 3307–3318

    2013

  76. [78]

    Cosmological constraints with clustering-based redshifts

    E. D. Kovetz, A. Raccanelli, and M. Rahman, “Cosmological constraints with clustering-based redshifts”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society468no. 3, (03, 2017) 3650–3656

    2017

  77. [79]

    Constraining ultralarge-scale cosmology with multiple tracers in optical and radio surveys

    D. Alonso and P. G. Ferreira, “Constraining ultralarge-scale cosmology with multiple tracers in optical and radio surveys”,Phys. Rev. D92(Sep, 2015) 063525

    2015

  78. [80]

    Intensity mapping cross-correlations: connecting the largest scales to galaxy evolution

    L. Wolz, C. Tonini, C. Blake, and J. S. B. Wyithe, “Intensity mapping cross-correlations: connecting the largest scales to galaxy evolution”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society458no. 3, (03, 2016) 3399–3410

    2016

  79. [81]

    Prospects for clustering and lensing measurements with forthcoming intensity mapping and optical surveys

    A. Pourtsidou, D. Bacon, R. Crittenden, and R. B. Metcalf, “Prospects for clustering and lensing measurements with forthcoming intensity mapping and optical surveys”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society459no. 1, (03, 2016) 863–870

    2016

  80. [82]

    Testing gravity at large scales with HI intensity mapping

    A. Pourtsidou, “Testing gravity at large scales with HI intensity mapping”,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society461no. 2, (06, 2016) 1457–1464

    2016

Showing first 80 references.