pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22572 · v1 · pith:VFC3BBH7new · submitted 2026-06-21 · 📊 stat.ME · astro-ph.IM· physics.data-an· stat.CO

OASIS: Observation-Aware Simulation-Based Inference via Distributional Matching

Arya Farahi , Conghao Zhou , Ritwik Vashistha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 09:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ME astro-ph.IMphysics.data-anstat.CO
keywords simulation-based inferencemaximum mean discrepancyobservation modelpseudo-posteriordistributional matchingerrors-in-variablescosmological inference
0
0 comments X

The pith

OASIS builds a pseudo-posterior by reweighting prior samples to match the full distribution of observed data after embedding measurement errors and selection effects inside the simulator.

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

The paper introduces OASIS for scientific inference problems where simulators produce ideal latent quantities but real data pass through complex pipelines of noise, selection, and transformations. It embeds the entire observation process inside the simulator so that forward-simulated observations become directly comparable to real data. Inference then proceeds by constructing a pseudo-posterior through reweighting of prior samples according to a maximum mean discrepancy loss between the two empirical distributions. This sidesteps both handcrafted summary statistics and learned neural surrogates. A reader would care because many fields generate data only after irreversible observational distortions that standard simulation-based methods ignore, producing biased or overconfident results.

Core claim

OASIS constructs a pseudo-posterior by reweighting prior samples according to a maximum mean discrepancy loss between the empirical distributions of the observed data and forward-simulated observations that include the full observation model. It supplies theoretical guarantees of Monte Carlo consistency, convergence of the empirical pseudo-posterior to its population version, and posterior concentration on the MMD-identified parameter set, with consistency for the true parameter when the model is correctly specified and identifiable. In controlled experiments it recovers parameters robustly under heterogeneous non-Gaussian noise, and it is demonstrated on galaxy cluster data linked by nonlin

What carries the argument

Maximum mean discrepancy loss applied to empirical distributions of real observations versus forward-simulated observations that embed the full observation model, used to reweight prior samples into a pseudo-posterior.

If this is right

  • Parameter recovery remains robust under heterogeneous and non-Gaussian measurement noise without requiring summary statistics.
  • The method produces well-calibrated uncertainty estimates in settings with nonlinear scaling relations and incomplete data coverage.
  • Theoretical guarantees ensure the empirical pseudo-posterior converges to the population version and concentrates on the MMD-identified set.
  • Inference occurs directly at the level of observed-data distributions, avoiding both handcrafted summaries and neural network surrogates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same reweighting approach could be tested in domains such as particle physics or medical imaging where simulators can incorporate analogous measurement pipelines.
  • Performance may depend on kernel choice in the MMD; adaptive or learned kernels could be explored as an extension for high-dimensional data.
  • Because the method yields a weighted sample rather than a density estimate, it may integrate naturally with downstream tasks that require posterior samples for propagation of uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The complete observation model including all measurement errors, selection functions, and survey transformations can be accurately embedded inside the simulator so that simulated observations are statistically comparable to real data.

What would settle it

Run a controlled simulation where a known selection function is deliberately omitted from the embedded observation model and check whether the resulting pseudo-posterior concentrates away from the true parameter values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22572 by Arya Farahi, Conghao Zhou, Ritwik Vashistha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Performance comparison under Gaussian intrinsic noise. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior comparison for a representative realization. Contours show the 68% and 90% credible regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top row: distribution of posterior-mean estimation error across 50 independent realizations for Ωmh 2 and σ8. Bottom row: empirical 90% credible interval coverage with Wilson-score confidence intervals; the dashed line marks nominal 90% coverage. handle the full complexity of a realistic multi-wavelength cluster-cosmology analysis, including observational noise, correlated observables, and survey selection… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity of the OASIS pseudo-posterior to the temperature parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Realization of 180 data points using the setup described in Appendix G. We compare the estimated linear line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Figure 1 but with Laplace (top panels) and Uniform (bottom panels) measurement error. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce OASIS, a simulation-based inference framework for scientific settings where observations are distorted by measurement error, selection effects, and other survey-specific transformations. In many real applications, simulators generate latent, noiseless quantities, while the data are observed only after passing through a complex observational pipeline. Standard simulation-based inference methods often ignore this distinction, comparing observations to idealized simulator outputs or relying on low-dimensional summaries that can miss important structure. OASIS addresses this mismatch by explicitly embedding the observation model into the simulator and performing inference directly at the level of observed-data distributions. The method constructs a pseudo-posterior by reweighting prior samples according to a maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) loss between the empirical distributions of the observed data and forward-simulated observations, thereby avoiding both handcrafted summaries and learned neural surrogates. We provide theoretical guarantees for Monte Carlo consistency, convergence of the empirical pseudo-posterior to its population counterpart, and posterior concentration on the MMD-identified parameter set, with consistency for the true parameter under correct specification and identifiability. In controlled errors-in-variables regression experiments, OASIS delivers robust parameter recovery and well-calibrated uncertainty under heterogeneous and non-Gaussian measurement noise. We then demonstrate the method on a realistic cosmological application involving galaxy cluster observations across multiple wavelengths, in which latent physical properties are linked to observables through nonlinear scaling relations, heteroscedastic errors, selection functions, and incomplete coverage.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces OASIS, a simulation-based inference framework that embeds the full observation model (measurement error, selection functions, survey transformations) into the simulator and constructs a pseudo-posterior by reweighting prior samples according to an MMD loss between the empirical distribution of the real observations and the forward-simulated observations. It states theoretical guarantees for Monte Carlo consistency, convergence of the empirical pseudo-posterior to its population version, and posterior concentration on the MMD-identified parameter set (with consistency for the true parameter under correct specification and identifiability). The approach is illustrated on errors-in-variables regression with heterogeneous non-Gaussian noise and on a realistic multi-wavelength galaxy-cluster cosmology example involving nonlinear scaling relations, heteroscedastic errors, and incomplete coverage.

Significance. If the stated guarantees hold, the work is significant for domains that rely on simulators producing latent quantities while data are subject to complex observational pipelines. By operating directly at the level of observed-data distributions via MMD reweighting, the method avoids both handcrafted summaries and neural density estimators while supplying explicit consistency results under standard kernel and identifiability conditions. The cosmological demonstration, which incorporates realistic selection and scaling effects, illustrates practical utility.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Method section] The description of the MMD estimator (including choice of kernel and bandwidth) should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than deferred to supplementary material, as this choice directly affects the finite-sample behavior of the reweighting step.
  2. [Experiments section] In the regression experiments, the reported recovery metrics would be strengthened by including a direct comparison against at least one standard SBI baseline (e.g., ABC or neural posterior estimation) on the same simulated data sets.
  3. Notation for the empirical versus population MMD should be introduced once and used consistently; occasional reuse of the same symbol for both quantities can be confusing on first reading.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript, including the recognition of its significance for simulation-based inference in settings with complex observational pipelines, and for the recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper constructs a pseudo-posterior by reweighting prior samples with an MMD loss between empirical observed and forward-simulated distributions after embedding the observation model in the simulator. Theoretical guarantees for Monte Carlo consistency, empirical convergence, and posterior concentration on the MMD-identified set are stated explicitly under the assumptions of correct specification and identifiability, without any equation or step reducing these results to a quantity fitted from the same data, a self-definitional loop, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The approach uses standard distributional matching and does not rename known results or smuggle ansatzes via prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is limited to premises explicitly invoked there; no numerical free parameters or new entities are named.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The observation model can be accurately embedded inside the simulator
    Invoked when the abstract states that the method embeds the observation model and performs inference at the observed-data level.
  • domain assumption The MMD identifies the parameter set under correct specification and identifiability
    Basis for the claimed posterior concentration and consistency for the true parameter.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5794 in / 1640 out tokens · 32796 ms · 2026-06-26T09:49:24.482779+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

74 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Physics- informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    George Em Karniadakis, Ioannis G Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, and Liu Yang. Physics- informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6):422–440, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006

    Raymond J Carroll, David Ruppert, Leonard A Stefanski, and Ciprian M Crainiceanu.Measurement error in nonlinear models: a modern perspective. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    Wayne A Fuller.Measurement error models. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    The frontier of simulation-based inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, 2020

    Kyle Cranmer, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. The frontier of simulation-based inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Approximate bayesian computation in population genetics.Genetics, 162(4):2025–2035, 2002

    Mark A Beaumont, Wenyang Zhang, and David J Balding. Approximate bayesian computation in population genetics.Genetics, 162(4):2025–2035, 2002

    2025

  6. [6]

    CRC press, 2018

    Scott A Sisson, Yanan Fan, and Mark Beaumont.Handbook of approximate Bayesian computation. CRC press, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows

    George Papamakarios, David Sterratt, and Iain Murray. Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows. InThe 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 837–848. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Kernel bayes’ rule.Advances in neural information processing systems, 24, 2011

    Kenji Fukumizu, Le Song, and Arthur Gretton. Kernel bayes’ rule.Advances in neural information processing systems, 24, 2011

    2011

  9. [9]

    K2-abc: Approximate bayesian computation with kernel embeddings

    Mijung Park, Wittawat Jitkrittum, and Dino Sejdinovic. K2-abc: Approximate bayesian computation with kernel embeddings. InArtificial intelligence and statistics, pages 398–407. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  10. [10]

    Approximating likelihood ratios with calibrated discriminative classifiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02169, 2015

    Kyle Cranmer, Juan Pavez, and Gilles Louppe. Approximating likelihood ratios with calibrated discriminative classifiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02169, 2015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    George Papamakarios and Iain Murray. Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation.Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  12. [12]

    Likelihood-free inference with emulator networks

    Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Giacomo Bassetto, Theofanis Karaletsos, and Jakob H Macke. Likelihood-free inference with emulator networks. InSymposium on advances in approximate Bayesian inference, pages 32–53. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  13. [13]

    Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators

    Joeri Hermans, V olodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 4239–4248. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  14. [14]

    Neural methods for amortized inference

    Andrew Zammit-Mangion, Matthew Sainsbury-Dale, and Raphaël Huser. Neural methods for amortized inference. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 12(1):311–335, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    A crisis in simulation-based inference? beware, your posterior approximations can be unfaithful.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    Joeri Hermans, Arnaud Delaunoy, François Rozet, Antoine Wehenkel, V olodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. A crisis in simulation-based inference? beware, your posterior approximations can be unfaithful.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022

    2022

  16. [16]

    A kernel method for the two-sample-problem.Advances in neural information processing systems, 19, 2006

    Arthur Gretton, Karsten Borgwardt, Malte Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alex Smola. A kernel method for the two-sample-problem.Advances in neural information processing systems, 19, 2006

    2006

  17. [17]

    Convolutional maximum mean discrepancy for inference in noisy data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.12022, 2026

    Ritwik Vashistha, Jeff M Phillips, Abhra Sarkar, and Arya Farahi. Convolutional maximum mean discrepancy for inference in noisy data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.12022, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images.IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (6):721–741, 1984

    Stuart Geman and Donald Geman. Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images.IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, (6):721–741, 1984. 10 OASIS: Observation-Aware Simulation-Based Inference via Distributional Matching

    1984

  19. [19]

    Gibbs posterior for variable selection in high-dimensional classification and data mining.The Annals of Statistics, pages 2207–2231, 2008

    Wenxin Jiang and Martin A Tanner. Gibbs posterior for variable selection in high-dimensional classification and data mining.The Annals of Statistics, pages 2207–2231, 2008

    2008

  20. [20]

    A general framework for updating belief distributions.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 78(5):1103–1130, 2016

    Pier Giovanni Bissiri, Chris C Holmes, and Stephen G Walker. A general framework for updating belief distributions.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 78(5):1103–1130, 2016

    2016

  21. [21]

    Simulation-based inference via regression projection and batched discrepancies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03613, 2026

    Arya Farahi, Jonah Rose, and Paul Torrey. Simulation-based inference via regression projection and batched discrepancies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03613, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Cosmological parameters from observations of galaxy clusters.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49(1):409–470, 2011

    Steven W Allen, August E Evrard, and Adam B Mantz. Cosmological parameters from observations of galaxy clusters.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49(1):409–470, 2011

    2011

  23. [23]

    Proper rounding of the measurement results under normality assumptions.Measurement Science and Technology, 11:1659, 2000

    Gejza Wimmer, Viktor Witkovsk`y, and Tomas Duby. Proper rounding of the measurement results under normality assumptions.Measurement Science and Technology, 11:1659, 2000

    2000

  24. [24]

    A large sample of calibration stars for Gaia: log g from Kepler and CoRoT fields.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431:2419–2432, 2013

    OL Creevey, F Thévenin, S Basu, WJ Chaplin, L Bigot, Y Elsworth, D Huber, MJPFG Monteiro, and A Serenelli. A large sample of calibration stars for Gaia: log g from Kepler and CoRoT fields.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 431:2419–2432, 2013

    2013

  25. [25]

    Calibration concordance for astronomical instruments via multiplicative shrinkage.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114(527):1018–1037, 2019

    Yang Chen, Xiao-Li Meng, Xufei Wang, David A van Dyk, Herman L Marshall, and Vinay L Kashyap. Calibration concordance for astronomical instruments via multiplicative shrinkage.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114(527):1018–1037, 2019

    2019

  26. [26]

    Henry W Leung and Jo Bovy. Simultaneous calibration of spectro-photometric distances and the gaia dr2 parallax zero-point offset with deep learning.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489:2079–2096, 2019

    2079

  27. [27]

    Kinematics in young star clusters and associations with gaia dr2.The Astrophysical Journal, 870:32, 2019

    Michael A Kuhn, Lynne A Hillenbrand, Alison Sills, Eric D Feigelson, and Konstantin V Getman. Kinematics in young star clusters and associations with gaia dr2.The Astrophysical Journal, 870:32, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    Beyond the yard line: Accommodating rounded sports data in statistical models.The American Statistician, pages 1–10, 2026

    Amanda K Glazer, Layla Parast, and Mevin B Hooten. Beyond the yard line: Accommodating rounded sports data in statistical models.The American Statistician, pages 1–10, 2026

    2026

  29. [29]

    A kernel two-sample test.The journal of machine learning research, 13(1):723–773, 2012

    Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, Malte J Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander Smola. A kernel two-sample test.The journal of machine learning research, 13(1):723–773, 2012

    2012

  30. [30]

    Asymptotic normality, concentration, and coverage of generalized posteriors.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(168):1–53, 2021

    Jeffrey W Miller. Asymptotic normality, concentration, and coverage of generalized posteriors.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22(168):1–53, 2021

    2021

  31. [31]

    Robust bayesian inference via coarsening.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2019

    Jeffrey W Miller and David B Dunson. Robust bayesian inference via coarsening.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2019

    2019

  32. [32]

    Assigning a value to a power likelihood in a general bayesian model

    Chris C Holmes and Stephen G Walker. Assigning a value to a power likelihood in a general bayesian model. Biometrika, 104(2):497–503, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    Direct gibbs posterior inference on risk minimizers: Construction, concentration, and calibration

    Ryan Martin and Nicholas Syring. Direct gibbs posterior inference on risk minimizers: Construction, concentration, and calibration. InHandbook of Statistics, volume 47, pages 1–41. Elsevier, 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    Asymptotic properties of approximate bayesian computation.Biometrika, 105(3):593–607, 2018

    David T Frazier, Gael M Martin, Christian P Robert, and Judith Rousseau. Asymptotic properties of approximate bayesian computation.Biometrika, 105(3):593–607, 2018

    2018

  35. [35]

    Statistical inference for noisy nonlinear ecological dynamic systems.Nature, 466(7310):1102– 1104, 2010

    Simon N Wood. Statistical inference for noisy nonlinear ecological dynamic systems.Nature, 466(7310):1102– 1104, 2010

    2010

  36. [36]

    Bayesian synthetic likelihood.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 27(1):1–11, 2018

    Leah F Price, Christopher C Drovandi, Anthony Lee, and David J Nott. Bayesian synthetic likelihood.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 27(1):1–11, 2018

    2018

  37. [37]

    Bayesian indirect inference using a parametric auxiliary model.Statistical Science, 30(1):72–95, 2015

    Christopher C Drovandi, Anthony N Pettitt, and Anthony Lee. Bayesian indirect inference using a parametric auxiliary model.Statistical Science, 30(1):72–95, 2015

    2015

  38. [38]

    Abc and indirect inference

    Christopher C Drovandi. Abc and indirect inference. InHandbook of Approximate Bayesian Computation, pages 179–209. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

    2018

  39. [39]

    Mmd-bayes: Robust bayesian estimation via maximum mean discrepancy

    Badr-Eddine Chérief-Abdellatif and Pierre Alquier. Mmd-bayes: Robust bayesian estimation via maximum mean discrepancy. InSymposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference, pages 1–21. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  40. [40]

    Approximate bayesian computation with the wasserstein distance.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 81(2):235–269, 2019

    Espen Bernton, Pierre E Jacob, Mathieu Gerber, and Christian P Robert. Approximate bayesian computation with the wasserstein distance.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 81(2):235–269, 2019

    2019

  41. [41]

    Approximate bayesian computation with the sliced-wasserstein distance

    Kimia Nadjahi, Valentin De Bortoli, Alain Durmus, Roland Badeau, and Umut ¸ Sim¸ sekli. Approximate bayesian computation with the sliced-wasserstein distance. InICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5470–5474. IEEE, 2020. 11 OASIS: Observation-Aware Simulation-Based Inference via Distribu...

    2020

  42. [42]

    Anirban Chatterjee, Ziang Niu, and Bhaswar B Bhattacharya. A kernel-based conditional two-sample test using nearest neighbors (with applications to calibration, regression curves, and simulation-based inference).arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16550, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Cambridge university press, 2000

    Aad W Van der Vaart.Asymptotic statistics, volume 3. Cambridge university press, 2000

    2000

  44. [44]

    Gibbs posterior convergence and the thermodynamic formalism.The Annals of Applied Probability, 32(1):461–496, 2022

    Kevin McGoff, Sayan Mukherjee, and Andrew B Nobel. Gibbs posterior convergence and the thermodynamic formalism.The Annals of Applied Probability, 32(1):461–496, 2022

    2022

  45. [45]

    Bayes posterior convergence for loss functions via almost additive thermodynamic formalism.Journal of Statistical Physics, 186(3):35, 2022

    Artur O Lopes, Silvia RC Lopes, and Paulo Varandas. Bayes posterior convergence for loss functions via almost additive thermodynamic formalism.Journal of Statistical Physics, 186(3):35, 2022

    2022

  46. [46]

    Modern bayesian asymptotics.Statistical Science, pages 111–117, 2004

    Stephen G Walker. Modern bayesian asymptotics.Statistical Science, pages 111–117, 2004

    2004

  47. [47]

    Some aspects of measurement error in linear regression of astronomical data.The Astrophysical Journal, 665(2):1489–1506, 2007

    Brandon C Kelly. Some aspects of measurement error in linear regression of astronomical data.The Astrophysical Journal, 665(2):1489–1506, 2007

    2007

  48. [48]

    Statistical adjustment of data

    William Edwards Deming. Statistical adjustment of data. 1943

    1943

  49. [49]

    Linear regression for astronomical data with measurement errors and intrinsic scatter.Astrophysical Journal, 470:706, 1996

    Michael G Akritas and Matthew A Bershady. Linear regression for astronomical data with measurement errors and intrinsic scatter.Astrophysical Journal, 470:706, 1996

    1996

  50. [50]

    Orthogonal distance regression.Contemporary Mathematics, 112:183–194, 1990

    Paul T Boggs and Janet E Rogers. Orthogonal distance regression.Contemporary Mathematics, 112:183–194, 1990

    1990

  51. [51]

    Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89:1314–1328, 1994

    John R Cook and Leonard A Stefanski. Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89:1314–1328, 1994

    1994

  52. [52]

    The aemulus project

    Thomas McClintock, Eduardo Rozo, Matthew R Becker, Joseph DeRose, Yao-Yuan Mao, Sean McLaughlin, Jeremy L Tinker, Risa H Wechsler, and Zhongxu Zhai. The aemulus project. ii. emulating the halo mass function. The Astrophysical Journal, 872(1):53, 2019

    2019

  53. [53]

    The mira-titan universe

    Sebastian Bocquet, Katrin Heitmann, Salman Habib, Earl Lawrence, Thomas Uram, Nicholas Frontiere, Adrian Pope, and Hal Finkel. The mira-titan universe. iii. emulation of the halo mass function.The Astrophysical Journal, 901(1):5, 2020

    2020

  54. [54]

    Locuss: scaling relations between galaxy cluster mass, gas, and stellar content.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484(1):60–80, 2019

    Sarah L Mulroy, Arya Farahi, August E Evrard, Graham P Smith, Alexis Finoguenov, Christine O’Donnell, Daniel P Marrone, Zubair Abdulla, Hervé Bourdin, John E Carlstrom, et al. Locuss: scaling relations between galaxy cluster mass, gas, and stellar content.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484(1):60–80, 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    Detection of anti-correlation of hot and cold baryons in galaxy clusters.Nature Communications, 10(1):2504, 2019

    Arya Farahi, Sarah L Mulroy, August E Evrard, Graham P Smith, Alexis Finoguenov, Hervé Bourdin, John E Carlstrom, Chris P Haines, Daniel P Marrone, Rossella Martino, et al. Detection of anti-correlation of hot and cold baryons in galaxy clusters.Nature Communications, 10(1):2504, 2019

    2019

  56. [56]

    Optical selection bias and projection effects in stacked galaxy cluster weak lensing.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515(3):4471–4486, 2022

    Hao-Yi Wu, Matteo Costanzi, Chun-Hao To, Andrés N Salcedo, David H Weinberg, James Annis, Sebastian Bocquet, Maria Elidaiana da Silva Pereira, Joseph DeRose, Johnny Esteves, et al. Optical selection bias and projection effects in stacked galaxy cluster weak lensing.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515(3):4471–4486, 2022

    2022

  57. [57]

    Spt clusters with des and hst weak lensing

    S Bocquet, S Grandis, LE Bleem, M Klein, JJ Mohr, M Aguena, A Alarcon, S Allam, SW Allen, O Alves, et al. Spt clusters with des and hst weak lensing. i. cluster lensing and bayesian population modeling of multiwavelength cluster datasets.Physical Review D, 110(8):083509, 2024

    2024

  58. [58]

    Sebastian Grandis, Sebastian Bocquet, Joseph J Mohr, Matthias Klein, and Klaus Dolag. Calibration of bias and scatter involved in cluster mass measurements using optical weak gravitational lensing.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507(4):5671–5689, 2021

    2021

  59. [59]

    sbi: A toolkit for simulation-based inference.The Journal of Open Source Software, 5(52), 2020

    Alvaro Tejero-Cantero, Jan Boelts, Michael Deistler, Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Conor Durkan, Pedro J Gonçalves, David S Greenberg, and Jakob H Macke. sbi: A toolkit for simulation-based inference.The Journal of Open Source Software, 5(52), 2020

    2020

  60. [60]

    Ltu-ili: An all-in-one framework for implicit inference in astrophysics and cosmology.The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 2024

    Matthew Ho, Deaglan J Bartlett, Nicolas Chartier, Carolina Cuesta-Lazaro, Simon Ding, Axel Lapel, Pablo Lemos, Christopher C Lovell, T Lucas Makinen, Chirag Modi, et al. Ltu-ili: An all-in-one framework for implicit inference in astrophysics and cosmology.The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 2024

    2024

  61. [61]

    A unified bayesian framework for modeling measurement error in multinomial data.Bayesian Analysis, 21(1):453–483, 2026

    Matthew D Koslovsky, Andee Kaplan, Victoria A Terranova, and Mevin B Hooten. A unified bayesian framework for modeling measurement error in multinomial data.Bayesian Analysis, 21(1):453–483, 2026

    2026

  62. [62]

    Asymptotic statistics.Cambridge series in statistical and probabilistic mathematics, 1998

    AW vd Vaart. Asymptotic statistics.Cambridge series in statistical and probabilistic mathematics, 1998. 12 OASIS: Observation-Aware Simulation-Based Inference via Distributional Matching

    1998

  63. [63]

    Constraints on the Mass-Richness Relation from the Abundance and Weak Lensing of SDSS Clusters.The Astrophysical Journal, 854:120, February 2018

    Ryoma Murata, Takahiro Nishimichi, Masahiro Takada, Hironao Miyatake, Masato Shirasaki, Surhud More, Ryuichi Takahashi, and Ken Osato. Constraints on the Mass-Richness Relation from the Abundance and Weak Lensing of SDSS Clusters.The Astrophysical Journal, 854:120, February 2018

    2018

  64. [64]

    Myles, D

    J. Myles, D. Gruen, A. B. Mantz, S. W. Allen, R. G. Morris, E. Rykoff, M. Costanzi, C. To, J. DeRose, R. H. Wechsler, E. Rozo, T. Jeltema, E. R. Carrasco, A. Kremin, and R. Kron. Spectroscopic Quantification of Projection Effects in the SDSS redMaPPer Galaxy Cluster Catalogue.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505(1):33–44, May 2021

    2021

  65. [65]

    Myles, D

    J. Myles, D. Gruen, T. Jeltema, A. Mantz, S. Allen, S. Fu, A. Kremin, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi, D. Brooks, F. J. Castander, T. Claybaugh, A. de la Macorra, Arjun Dey, P. Doel, S. Ferraro, J. E. Forero-Romero, E. Gaztañaga, S. Gontcho A Gontcho, G. Gutierrez, K. Honscheid, M. Ishak, R. Kehoe, D. Kirkby, T. Kisner, O. Lahav, M. Landriau, L. Le Guill...

    2080

  66. [66]

    Zhang, T

    Y . Zhang, T. Jeltema, D. L. Hollowood, S. Everett, E. Rozo, A. Farahi, A. Bermeo, S. Bhargava, P. Giles, A. K. Romer, R. Wilkinson, E. S. Rykoff, A. Mantz, H. T. Diehl, A. E. Evrard, C. Stern, D. Gruen, A. von der Linden, M. Splettstoesser, X. Chen, M. Costanzi, S. Allen, C. Collins, M. Hilton, M. Klein, R. G. Mann, M. Manolopoulou, G. Morris, J. Mayers,...

    2019

  67. [67]

    Kelly, J

    P. Kelly, J. Jobel, O. Eiger, A. Abd, T. E. Jeltema, P. Giles, D. L. Hollowood, R. D. Wilkinson, D. J. Turner, S. Bhargava, S. Everett, A. Farahi, A. K. Romer, E. S. Rykoff, F. Wang, S. Bocquet, D. Cross, R. Faridjoo, J. Franco, G. Gardner, M. Kwiecien, D. Laubner, A. McDaniel, J. H. O’Donnell, L. Sanchez, E. Schmidt, S. Sripada, A. Swart, E. Upsdell, A. ...

    2023

  68. [68]

    T. N. Varga, J. DeRose, D. Gruen, T. McClintock, S. Seitz, E. Rozo, M. Costanzi, B. Hoyle, N. MacCrann, A. A. Plazas, E. S. Rykoff, M. Simet, A. von der Linden, R. H. Wechsler, J. Annis, S. Avila, E. Bertin, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-Geer, D. L. Burke, A. Carnero Rosell, M. Carrasco Kind, J. Carretero, C. E. Cunha, C. B. D’Andrea, L. N. da Costa, J. De Vicent...

    2019

  69. [69]

    J. S. Sanders, A. C. Fabian, H. R. Russell, and S. A. Walker. Hydrostatic Chandra X-ray analysis of SPT-selected galaxy clusters - I. Evolution of profiles and core properties.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474:1065–1098, February 2018

    2018

  70. [70]

    Bulbul, A

    E. Bulbul, A. Liu, M. Kluge, X. Zhang, J. S. Sanders, Y . E. Bahar, V . Ghirardini, E. Artis, R. Seppi, C. Garrel, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, J. Comparat, F. Balzer, K. Böckmann, M. Brüggen, N. Clerc, K. Dennerl, K. Dolag, M. Freyberg, S. Grandis, D. Gruen, F. Kleinebreil, S. Krippendorf, G. Lamer, A. Merloni, K. Migkas, K. Nandra, F. Pacaud, P. Predehl, T. H. Rei...

    2024

  71. [71]

    The Mira-Titan Universe

    Sebastian Bocquet, Katrin Heitmann, Salman Habib, Earl Lawrence, Thomas Uram, Nicholas Frontiere, Adrian Pope, and Hal Finkel. The Mira-Titan Universe. III. Emulation of the Halo Mass Function.The Astrophysical Journal, 901:5, September 2020. A Assumptions Here, we state all the regularity conditions used throughout this work. Assumption A.1(Parameter spa...

    2020

  72. [72]

    + (1−π)N(µ 2, s2 2),(114) with π= 0.55 , (µ1, µ2) = (−1.2,1.0) , and (s1, s2) = (0.95,0.95) . This induces a mildly multimodal and overlapping distribution, ensuring that the latent covariate distribution is non-Gaussian and cannot be captured by simple parametric assumptions. Conditional onx true i , the latent response is generated via a linear model, y...

  73. [73]

    the Poisson abundance term, which constrains the overall normalization of the halo population, and

  74. [74]

    the normalized observable distribution, which constrains the shape of the detected population in mass, redshift, and observable space. The NPE and NLE baselines considered in this work use hand-designed summary statistics that explicitly include cluster-count information, marginal histograms, and redshift-richness distributions. Consequently, these method...