Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

A halo's large-scale bias is inherited from its cosmic-web host, making fixed-mass bias a skewed distribution whose width — not just its mean — drives shot noise, EFT prior bands, and the assembly-bias inversion.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:46 UTC pith:3CHATM2F

load-bearing objection A genuinely new analytic computation of the fixed-mass halo bias distribution, with a closure-proof excursion-set machinery; the stochasticity application rests on an unproven ergodic-type identification, but the prior and assembly-bias uses survive and deserve a serious referee. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21334 v1 pith:3CHATM2F submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.CO

Web-Halo Model Peak-Background Split (WHM-PBS): halo bias as a distribution, not a number

Samuel Brieden , Alexander Tipp This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords halo biascosmic webpeak-background splitexcursion sethalo stochasticityassembly biasEFT nuisance priorsmoving barrier
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that the standard picture of one bias number per halo mass is a truncation of a richer truth. It builds on a cosmic-web excursion set in which every halo sits inside a host filament, which in turn sits inside a sheet; the three nested moving barriers are crossed by a single random walk, giving each halo a host filament mass. Averaging the host filament's bias over the conditional host-mass distribution yields the familiar mean bias, but also a skewed distribution of biases at fixed halo mass. The paper's central claim is that the variance of this distribution is physical and predictive, and it demonstrates three consequences: physically motivated prior bands on bias relations, a parameter-free reproduction of the measured super-to-sub-Poisson shot-noise trend, and the sign inversion of the bias–concentration correlation at the characteristic mass. The only calibrated inputs are the barrier normalization and the moving-barrier parameters; no parameter is tuned to shot noise, prior widths, or assembly bias.

Core claim

The central claim is the environment-averaged identity b_{h,N}^L(M_h) = ⟨b_{f,N}^L(M_f)⟩_{M_f|M_h}: the Nth-order Lagrangian bias of a halo equals the Nth-order bias of its host filament, averaged over the conditional host-mass distribution. Because the host mass is random at fixed halo mass, halo bias is a distribution, not a number. The mean of this distribution is the standard mass-dependent bias, recovered exactly by Chapman–Kolmogorov closure, while its variance — roughly 0.35–0.5 for filament hosts and wider for sheet hosts — is inherited by all three observables. Read as a selection uncertainty, that variance becomes a forecast band around the density and tidal bias relations; read as

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the environment-averaged bias identity: the bias of a halo is the bias of its host environment, averaged over the conditional mass function of hosts. It is computed from a nested cosmic-web excursion set, in which one Markovian random walk first crosses three nested moving barriers (sheet, then filament, then halo), and the first-crossing distributions are obtained from the exact Volterra integral equation for moving-barrier crossing rates, not from a truncated series. Closure — the Chapman–Kolmogorov consistency of the conditional and unconditional mass functions — guarantees that the averaged host bias equals the directly computed halo bias, making the mean level

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the identification that a single Markovian random walk's first crossings of the three nested moving barriers describe the real halo-in-filament-in-sheet hierarchy, and that the host-mass distribution of real haloes realises the excursion-set conditional distribution; if actual hosts are not characterised by the walk's filament crossing mass, or if the host-mass field is not coherent on the assumed spherical host window, the predicted width of t

What would settle it

In a large-box N-body simulation, split a narrow halo mass bin (say M_h ≈ 10^13 h^-1 M☉) by the mass of the surrounding filament or by tidal anisotropy, and measure per-halo large-scale bias via separate-universe responses. If the 16–84 percentile width of the bias distribution inside that bin is appreciably below about 0.35, or if the bias–concentration sign flip does not occur near b1 ≈ 1.5, the predicted host variance is too wide. A second decisive check: measure the off-diagonal halo stochasticity matrix across ten mass bins; the theory predicts exactly two non-Poisson eigenvalues, one abo

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Full-shape clustering analyses can replace flat or fixed nuisance priors with calibrated widths: the paper's synthetic inference shows that broad free priors drag cosmology down a degeneracy, while its prior bands recover the truth, and pinning nuisances to fixed centres that are 1σ off can bias cosmology by up to ~3σ.
  • Halo shot noise becomes a prediction rather than a fitted parameter: super-Poisson at low mass, sub-Poisson at high mass, with a white plateau set by host-scale variance and a return to the Poisson floor at high k, including off-diagonal cross-mass correlations and two non-Poisson eigenvalues of the stochasticity matrix.
  • The bias–concentration correlation inversion at b1 ≈ 1.5 is explained by mixing a broad anisotropic host population (M_f/M_h > 1.76) with a tight isotropic one, with no parameter tuned to assembly bias.
  • The density bias relations b2(b1) and b3(b1) remain tight and universal, while the tidal bias bs2(b1) is genuinely scattered at fixed b1; this contrast sets the width of the tidal prior and is a distinguishing prediction.
  • The mean linear bias b1(M_h) is not improved as an absolute mass–bias predictor — it overshoots reference N-body calibration by ~18% — so the practical value lies in the relative b_N(b1) relations and in the predicted widths, not in the absolute calibration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the bias width truly comes from host scatter, the same variance should appear in higher-order statistics, for example as a contribution to the noise of the halo bispectrum and to the covariance of power-spectrum band powers; this is a testable extension beyond the paper's diagonal and off-diagonal power-spectrum stochasticity matrix.
  • Editorial inference: because the inversion threshold is tied to the turnaround radius, the predicted inversion mass should shift with the overdensity definition used to identify haloes and with redshift, since the ratio 1.76 was computed at z = 0 under a specific turnaround assumption; a simulation scan over those choices would directly stress the mechanism.
  • Editorial inference: any galaxy selection that correlates with environment — colour, star-formation quenching, spin — should inherit part of the host-mass distribution, so the same P(M_f|M_h) could predict the effective bias of red versus blue galaxies without a detailed halo-occupation fit, a route the paper does not itself explore.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops the Web-Halo Model Peak–Background Split (WHM-PBS), an analytic excursion-set theory in which the large-scale bias of a dark-matter halo is inherited from its cosmic-web host: a halo's bias is the bias of its host filament (or sheet) averaged over the conditional mass function, Eq. (3.4). Because the host mass is random at fixed halo mass, the predicted linear bias is a distribution, with variance Var(b1|Mh) ≈ 0.35–0.5 (filament default) and ≈1.0 (sheet). The same variance is then used in three ways: as a prior on the bias relations b2(b1), b3(b1), bs2(b1); as a source of super-Poisson stochasticity in the halo power spectrum, which together with halo exclusion is compared to Baldauf et al. (2013); and as an environment-driven assembly-bias signal, yielding a bias–concentration inversion at b1* ≈ 1.5, Mh* ≈ 1.7×10^13 h^-1 M_sun. The paper also demonstrates the resulting priors in a synthetic DESI-like EFT inference. The exact Zhang–Hui first-crossing solver is a central technical improvement: it restores Chapman–Kolmogorov closure that the truncated Sheth–Tormen series violates, and the paper verifies this explicitly in Appendices A–C.

Significance. If the central construction holds, this is a valuable step: it turns the excursion-set description of the cosmic web into concrete, falsifiable statements about bias scatter, stochasticity, and assembly bias without fitting those observables directly. The exact ZH solver and the explicit closure checks in Eqs. (2.6), (3.4), and (3.10) are genuine strengths, as is the honest reporting that the mean linear bias overpredicts the T10 calibration by ~18% and that the tidal mean overpredicts AB18 by ~1.5×. The b2(b1) and b3(b1) predictions track the Lazeyras et al. relations, and the qualitative super-to-sub-Poisson trend in the stochasticity matrix is reproduced. The synthetic EFT demonstration, while idealized, illustrates a practical use of the priors. However, the paper's headline claim that the bias scatter is 'computed, not fitted' is weakened by several externally calibrated choices: the 1.25 rescaling of the exclusion radii, the λ_S = 0.35 tidal calibration, and the turnaround threshold Mf/Mh = 1.76. Most importantly, the super-Poisson prediction itself relies on an explicitly acknowledged assumption about ensemble versus host averages that is not tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (5.10), fn. 7] The load-bearing step for the stochasticity prediction is the identification ⟨f(Mf(x))⟩ = ⟨f⟩_{Mf|Mh} in Eq. (5.6), together with the host-coherence window V⋆(Mf)W²_{R⋆}(q) in Eq. (5.10). The authors concede in footnote 7 that this equivalence is not guaranteed for a general random field. If the volume-weighted host-mass statistics differ from P(Mf|Mh), then ⟨δb⟩ ≠ 0, Eq. (5.9) is modified, and the super-Poisson excess, the matrix (5.14), and the EFT shot-noise prior of Section 5.3 lose quantitative grounding. This is not a circularity but a correctness risk. Please provide a concrete test: measure the volume-weighted host-mass distribution in an N-body simulation and compare it to the excursion-set P(Mf|Mh), or measure the host-mass correlation function to validate the assumed window. Without such a test, the central claim that the width of P(b1|Mh) is the source of stochasticity remain
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 1] The exclusion radii are rescaled by a factor 1.25 relative to the Baldauf et al. convention, and the text says this corresponds to the exact peak of the halo–halo correlation function. However, Table 1 shows that for the high-mass bins this choice exceeds the Lagrangian radius RL by 12–31% (ratio column), which is not the exact peak if the peak is expected at the virial/Lagrangian scale. This is effectively a fitted adjustment used to improve the high-mass stochasticity match, and it weakens the 'parameter-free' claim in Section 5.3 and the abstract. Please either derive the 1.25 factor from a physical model (e.g., a halo profile or exclusion criterion) or show the sensitivity of the stochasticity curves to this choice. At minimum, the text should state explicitly that this is a calibrated nuisance, not a prediction.
  3. [Section 6.1, Eq. (6.1)] The bias–concentration inversion is presented as having 'no parameter tuned to assembly bias,' but it depends on the external threshold Mf/Mh = 1.76, obtained from Rta ≃ 4R200b and ρ̄ta = 5.5ρ̄. This is an astrophysical assumption, not a derived quantity. The inversion location b1* ≈ 1.5 is within ~5% of the PHS18 value, but it should be tested for robustness: does varying the turnaround ratio by ±20% shift b1* by more than the claimed 5%? If so, the agreement is partly coincidental. Please quantify the sensitivity of Eq. (6.2) to the assumed Rta and ρ̄ta, and report whether the result is stable across the plausible range.
  4. [Section 4.1 / Section 5.1] The mean linear bias overpredicts Tinker et al. by ~18% and the tidal mean overpredicts Abidi–Baldauf by ~1.5×. The paper argues that the bN(b1) relations are insensitive to this offset, which is reasonable for the density sector because b1 is marginalized. However, the stochasticity amplitude in Eq. (5.10) uses b1(Mf) directly, not the ratio bN(b1). If the host-bias relation b1(Mf) carries the ~18% miscalibration, the variance Var(b1|Mh) and hence the super-Poisson plateau (5.12) will also be miscalibrated. Please quantify how much of the agreement with Baldauf et al. in Fig. 7 depends on the absolute normalization of b1(Mf), e.g., by recomputing the stochasticity with b1 scaled to match T10 exactly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, text after Eq. (5.6)] The sentence beginning 'the third follows from one identification' is duplicated and garbled: '...precisely as P(Mf|Mh) [Eq. (2.7)]. the third follows from the assumption...' Please rewrite for clarity.
  2. [Section 5.3 and Fig. 8 caption] Typographical errors: 'exlcusion' in Section 5.3 and 'correposnding' in the Fig. 8 caption. Also, in Fig. 8 the band is described as the '1σcorreposnding to half their difference' — this should be reworded.
  3. [Table 2] The columns in Table 2 are hard to read: values such as '3.15−0.57−0.92−5.83 †' need spacing or separate columns. The dagger footnote is also ambiguous; it appears to mean the posterior piles at the prior edge, but this is not explained in the table caption.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 9 captions] The lower axes in Fig. 3 have a stray '1 1 0.4 −0.1 −0.2 0.5 log10' label string that looks like a plotting artifact. In Fig. 9, the caption 'clustering mode + (host scatter)' contains a stray plus sign.
  5. [Section 4.4, Eq. (4.5)] The λ_S = 0.35 calibration from Lazeyras et al. is an external input. The paper does note this, but the abstract and Section 6.2 sometimes call the tidal prior 'calibrated' while the introduction says the aim is to predict biases and stochasticity 'analytically from first principles.' Please make the distinction between predicted and externally calibrated ingredients more prominent in the abstract and introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the bias scatter is computed from externally calibrated moving barriers; the mean-bias identity is acknowledged, and the only self-citation (WHM) is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the fixed-mass halo bias is a distribution whose width is computed, not fitted. The derivation chain is: S06/SMT01 moving barriers (external, simulation-calibrated) → exact Zhang–Hui first-crossing → conditional mass functions P(M_f|M_h) → environment-averaged bias (Eq. 3.4) → P(b_1|M_h) and Var(b_1|M_h). No parameter is tuned to the predicted scatter, stochasticity, or assembly-bias inversion. The mean of the distribution is an identity by closure, which the paper explicitly acknowledges ('By definition, evaluating halo bias directly from the halo mass function (3.2) yields the same result as the environmental average (3.4)'), and it does not claim the mean as a novel prediction. The stochasticity prediction rests on the unproven equality of ensemble and host averages (footnote 7) and the assumed host-coherence window V_* W^2, but these are model assumptions, not circular reductions. The self-citation to the WHM paper [21] is used only for the Eulerian-frame evolution of the host windows and matter power spectrum; the Lagrangian stochasticity prediction and the central bias-distribution result do not depend on it. The λ_S = 0.35 tidal calibration and the 1.76 turnaround threshold are explicitly labeled as external inputs/calibrations. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained and externally testable; the minor self-citation and acknowledged identity do not amount to circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model's inputs: the S06 moving-barrier inventory (a = 0.707 and (β, α) per morphology) is calibrated externally; the host-level choice, the ×1.25 exclusion radius, the λ_S = 0.35 tidal selection ceiling, and the turnaround threshold are chosen or calibrated with the comparison data in view. The width Var(b₁) itself is computed from the host distribution, not fitted. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • a (barrier normalization) = 0.707
    SMT01 normalization calibrated to N-body halo mass function; called 'the only free parameter' (Sec. 2.1). Shifts all three web barriers and hence the mean bias and its scatter.
  • (β, α) morphology barrier parameters = haloes (0.45, 0.61); filaments (−0.012, 0.28); sheets (−0.56, 0.55)
    Fitted by Shen et al. (2006) to ellipsoidal-collapse solutions; treated as inputs, not fitted to the target bias/scatter data (Sec. 2.1).
  • filament vs sheet host level = filament as default
    Model choice; filament adopted because it 'gives a narrower bias scatter favoured by the data of Section 5' (Sec. 3.1). The deliverable is a band between the two levels.
  • exclusion radius rescaling factor = 1.25 × R_excl^B13
    This work adopts the ξ_hh-maximum convention instead of B13's 0.8×; improves the high-mass stochasticity comparison; the most massive bin prefers 1.2×, not adopted (Sec. 5.2, Table 1).
  • λ_S (tidal selection ceiling) = 0.35
    Calibrated to the assembly-bias displacement measured from Lazeyras et al. concentration/spin quartile splits (Sec. 6.2); sets the tidal prior width in Eq. (4.5).
  • turnaround threshold M_f/M_h = 1.76 = 1.76 = (5.5/200) × 4³
    Assumes R_ta = 4 R_200b and ρ̄_ta = 5.5ρ̄; encodes the scale PHS18 use to smooth the tidal field; directly sets the BCC inversion location (Sec. 6.1, Eq. 6.1).
  • σ_ε (concentration intrinsic scatter) = 0.3 (0.14 dex)
    From Bullock et al.; used with |r_S| ≲ 0.1 to infer the required tidal coupling λ ≈ 0.05 (Sec. 6.1, Eq. 6.4).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The smoothed density walk is Markovian (uncorrelated increments) despite real-space top-hat filtering
    Sec. 2.1 footnote 1: 'Following standard practice, we neglect these' correlations; all first-crossing results depend on this approximation.
  • domain assumption A patch's collapse threshold depends only on the most-likely (Doroshkevich) eigenvalues, reducing the 6-D shear problem to a 1-D moving barrier
    SMT01/S06 approximation adopted in Sec. 2.1; produces Eq. (2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper First crossings of the three nested barriers by one walk yield the physical halo-in-filament-in-sheet mass hierarchy
    Secs. 2.1–2.3: 'the three crossings of one and the same walk are the nested hierarchy of this paper'; the excursion-set idealization of the cosmic web.
  • domain assumption PBS: a long-wavelength density mode is equivalent to uniformly lowering the barrier B(S) → B(S) − δ_b for any barrier
    Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.3); standard PBS extended to moving barriers.
  • ad hoc to paper Ensemble averages of functions of the host mass equal the host average over P(M_f|M_h)
    Sec. 5.1, footnote 7: the authors flag 'For a general random field, there is no reason to believe that both these types of averages would be equivalent'; underpins the super-Poisson power prediction (Eq. 5.10).
  • standard math Co-evolution relations map Lagrangian to Eulerian bias
    Eqs. (3.5), (3.11), (3.12); standard local-Lagrangian co-evolution from Fry 1996, Chan et al. 2012, etc.
  • domain assumption The Eulerian host-window evolution uses the authors' WHM model [21]
    Sec. 5.3: collapsed host windows and non-linear matter power from WHM (self-cited predecessor); no external validation shown in this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • host-mass field M_f(x|M_h) with coherence window V⋆(M_f)W²_{R⋆}(q) no independent evidence
    purpose: Converts the fixed-mass bias scatter into a scale-dependent stochasticity power P_clust_ε (Eqs. 5.10–5.11)
    A modeling construct, not a physical entity; its spatial coherence properties are assumed, and the authors flag the ensemble-average identification as unproven (footnote 7).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 42813 in / 22620 out tokens · 229771 ms · 2026-08-01T07:46:41.848866+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the Web--Halo Model Peak--Background Split (WHM-PBS), an analytic theory in which the large-scale bias of a dark-matter halo is inherited from its cosmic-web environment. Building on the Web--Halo Model, we use the Shen \textit{et al.} moving barriers for ellipsoidal collapse generating the web hierarchy in which every halo sits inside a host filament, itself inside a sheet. Combined with the peak--background split, this picture replaces the deterministic bias--mass relation $b(M_h)$ with the bias of the host environment, averaged over the conditional mass function. As a result, halo bias $b(M_h)$ is no longer a number but a strongly skewed \emph{distribution}. In this work we make use of this distribution in three different ways: as (i) a physically motivated prior on bias relations, (ii) a prediction on halo stochasticity, and (iii) a framework for assembly bias models. Regarding (i) we find that the density bias relations $b_2(b_1)$ and $b_3(b_1)$ stay tight, while the tidal bias $b_{s^2}(b_1)$ shows significant scatter, as found in $N$-body simulations. Regarding (ii), once including halo exclusion, our model reproduces the super- to sub-Poisson shot-noise trend of Baldauf \textit{et al.} which we convert into a prior band on the EFT stochasticity amplitude parameters. Finally, regarding (iii) in the density sector it explains the bias--concentration--correlation inversion of Paranjape \textit{et al.} at the characteristic mass ($M_\mathrm{h}\simeq1.7\times10^{13}\,h^{-1}\Msun$), with no parameter tuned to assembly bias.

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

79 extracted references · 67 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Kaiser,On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters,Astrophys

    N. Kaiser,On the spatial correlations of Abell clusters,Astrophys. J.284(1984) L9–L12

    1984

  2. [2]

    Cole and N

    S. Cole and N. Kaiser,Biased clustering in the cold dark matter cosmogony,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.237(Apr., 1989) 1127–1146

    1989

  3. [3]

    J. R. Bond, S. Cole, G. Efstathiou and N. Kaiser,Excursion Set Mass Functions for Hierarchical Gaussian Fluctuations,Astrophys. J.379(1991) 440

    1991

  4. [4]

    McDonald and A

    P. McDonald and A. Roy,Clustering of dark matter tracers: generalizing bias for the coming era of precision LSS,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2009(2009) 020, [0902.0991]. – 43 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-Scale Galaxy Bias,Phys. Rep.733(2018) 1–193, [1611.09787]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    L. Gao, V. Springel and S. D. M. White,The age dependence of halo clustering,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.363(2005) L66–L70, [astro-ph/0506510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen,On the environmental dependence of halo formation,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.350(2004) 1385, [astro-ph/0402237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    Dalal, M

    N. Dalal, M. White, J. R. Bond and A. Shirokov,Halo Assembly Bias in Hierarchical Structure Formation,Astrophys. J.687(2008) 12–21, [0803.3453]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    R. H. Wechsler and J. L. Tinker,The Connection Between Galaxies and Their Dark Matter Halos,Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.56(2018) 435, [1804.03097]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    R. H. Wechsler, A. R. Zentner, J. S. Bullock, A. V. Kravtsov and B. Allgood,The Dependence of Halo Clustering on Halo Formation History, Concentration, and Occupation,Astrophys. J. 652(2006) 71–84, [astro-ph/0512416]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  11. [11]

    Gao and S

    L. Gao and S. D. M. White,Assembly bias in the clustering of dark matter haloes,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.377(2007) L5–L9, [astro-ph/0611921]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    Paranjape, O

    A. Paranjape, O. Hahn and R. K. Sheth,Halo assembly bias and the tidal anisotropy of the local halo environment,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.476(2018) 3631–3647, [1706.09906]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen,Large-scale bias and the peak-background split,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.308(1999) 119–126, [astro-ph/9901122]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  14. [14]

    Cooray and R

    A. Cooray and R. K. Sheth,Halo Models of Large Scale Structure,Phys. Rep.372(2002) 1–129, [astro-ph/0206508]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    Schmidt, D

    F. Schmidt, D. Jeong and V. Desjacques,Peak-background split, renormalization, and galaxy clustering,Phys. Rev. D88(July, 2013) 023515, [1212.0868]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    W. H. Press and P. Schechter,Formation of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies by Self-Similar Gravitational Condensation,Astrophys. J.187(1974) 425–438

    1974

  17. [17]

    R. K. Sheth, H. J. Mo and G. Tormen,Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark matter haloes,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.323(2001) 1–12, [astro-ph/9907024]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen,An excursion set model of hierarchical clustering: ellipsoidal collapse and the moving barrier,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.329(2002) 61–75, [astro-ph/0105113]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [19]

    J. Shen, T. Abel, H. J. Mo and R. K. Sheth,An Excursion Set Model of the Cosmic Web: The Abundance of Sheets, Filaments, and Halos,Astrophys. J.645(2006) 783–791, [astro-ph/0511365]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  20. [20]

    J. R. Bond, L. Kofman and D. Pogosyan,How Filaments are Woven into the Cosmic Web, Nature (London)380(1996) 603–606, [astro-ph/9512141]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  21. [21]

    Brieden, F

    S. Brieden, F. Beutler and M. Pellejero-Iba˜ nez,Web-Halo Model (WHM): Accurate non-linear matter power spectrum predictions without free parameters,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.547 (2026) stag338, [2508.10902]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Aghamousa et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science, Targeting, and Survey Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00036, [1611.00036]

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science, Targeting, and Survey Design,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1611.00036, [1611.00036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Abdul-Karim et al.,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,Phys

    DESI Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim et al.,DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515, [2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame et al.,DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 008, [2411.12021]. – 44 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    DESI Collaboration, A. G. Adame et al.,DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 028, [2411.12022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Forero-S´ anchez et al.,Cosmological constraints from a joint DESI DR1 Full-Shape and DR2 BAO,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2602.18761, [2602.18761]

    DESI Collaboration, D. Forero-S´ anchez et al.,Cosmological constraints from a joint DESI DR1 Full-Shape and DR2 BAO,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2602.18761, [2602.18761]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Laureijs et al.,Euclid Definition Study Report,arXiv e-prints(2011) arXiv:1110.3193, [1110.3193]

    R. Laureijs et al.,Euclid Definition Study Report,arXiv e-prints(2011) arXiv:1110.3193, [1110.3193]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [28]

    Hadzhiyska, K

    B. Hadzhiyska, K. Wolz, S. Azzoni, D. Alonso, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, J. Ruiz-Zapatero et al., Cosmology with 6 parameters in the Stage-IV era: efficient marginalisation over nuisance parameters,The Open Journal of Astrophysics6(July, 2023) 23, [2301.11895]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Carrilho, C

    P. Carrilho, C. Moretti and A. Pourtsidou,Cosmology with the EFTofLSS and BOSS: dark energy constraints and a note on priors,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023(Jan., 2023) 028, [2207.14784]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Tsedrik, P

    M. Tsedrik, P. Carrilho and C. Moretti,The simple way to measure evolving dark energy without prior-volume effects,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2026(Apr., 2026) 030, [2509.09562]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Eggemeier, R

    A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro, R. E. Smith, M. Crocce, A. Pezzotta and A. G. S´ anchez, Testing one-loop galaxy bias: Joint analysis of power spectrum and bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D 103(2021) 123550, [2102.06902]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Barreira, T

    A. Barreira, T. Lazeyras and F. Schmidt,Galaxy bias from forward models: linear and second-order bias of IllustrisTNG galaxies,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 029, [2105.02876]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Zennaro, R

    M. Zennaro, R. E. Angulo, S. Contreras, M. Pellejero-Ib´ a˜ nez and F. Maion,Priors on Lagrangian bias parameters from galaxy formation modelling,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.514 (2022) 5443–5456, [2110.05408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    J. R. Bond and S. T. Myers,The Peak-Patch Picture of Cosmic Catalogs. I. Algorithms, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.103(1996) 1

    1996

  35. [35]

    St¨ ucker, P

    J. St¨ ucker, P. Busch and S. D. M. White,The median density of the Universe,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.477(July, 2018) 3230–3246, [1710.09881]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    A. G. Doroshkevich,Spatial structure of perturbations and origin of galactic rotation in fluctuation theory,Astrophysics6(1970) 320–330

    1970

  37. [37]

    Despali, C

    G. Despali, C. Giocoli, R. E. Angulo, G. Tormen, R. K. Sheth, G. Baso et al.,The universality of the virial halo mass function and models for non-universality of other halo definitions,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.456(2016) 2486–2504, [1507.05627]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Zhang and L

    J. Zhang and L. Hui,On Random Walks with a General Moving Barrier,Astrophys. J.641 (2006) 641–646, [astro-ph/0508384]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  39. [39]

    R. G. Bower,The evolution of groups of galaxies in the Press-Schechter formalism,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.248(1991) 332–352

    1991

  40. [40]

    Lacey and S

    C. Lacey and S. Cole,Merger rates in hierarchical models of galaxy formation,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.262(1993) 627

    1993

  41. [41]

    Lazeyras, C

    T. Lazeyras, C. Wagner, T. Baldauf and F. Schmidt,Precision measurement of the local bias of dark matter halos,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02(2016) 018, [1511.01096]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Seljak,Analytic model for galaxy and dark matter clustering,Mon

    U. Seljak,Analytic model for galaxy and dark matter clustering,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 318(2000) 203, [astro-ph/0001493]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  43. [43]

    J. A. Peacock and R. E. Smith,Halo occupation numbers and galaxy bias,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.318(2000) 1144, [astro-ph/0005010]. – 45 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  44. [44]

    A. J. Benson, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk, C. M. Baugh and C. G. Lacey,The nature of galaxy bias and clustering,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.311(2000) 793–808, [astro-ph/9903343]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  45. [45]

    Scoccimarro, R

    R. Scoccimarro, R. K. Sheth, L. Hui and B. Jain,How Many Galaxies Fit in a Halo? Constraints on Galaxy Formation Efficiency from Spatial Clustering,Astrophys. J.546(2001) 20–34, [astro-ph/0006319]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  46. [46]

    A. A. Berlind and D. H. Weinberg,The Halo Occupation Distribution: Toward an Empirical Determination of the Relation between Galaxies and Mass,Astrophys. J.575(2002) 587–616, [astro-ph/0109001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  47. [47]

    Voivodic and A

    R. Voivodic and A. Barreira,Responses of Halo Occupation Distributions: a new ingredient in the halo model and the impact on galaxy bias,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 069, [2012.04637]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Akitsu,Mapping the galaxy-halo connection to the galaxy bias: implication to the HOD-informed prior,arXiv e-prints(2024) , [2410.08998]

    K. Akitsu,Mapping the galaxy-halo connection to the galaxy bias: implication to the HOD-informed prior,arXiv e-prints(2024) , [2410.08998]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    M. M. Ivanov, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, S. Mishra-Sharma, A. Obuljen and M. W. Toomey,Full-shape analysis with simulation-based priors: constraints on single field inflation from BOSS,arXiv e-prints(2024) , [2402.13310]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    J. N. Fry,The Evolution of Bias,Astrophys. J.461(1996) L65–L67

    1996

  51. [51]

    H. J. Mo, Y. P. Jing and S. D. M. White,High-order correlations of peaks and haloes: a step towards understanding galaxy biasing,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.284(1997) 189–201, [astro-ph/9603039]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  52. [52]

    K. C. Chan, R. Scoccimarro and R. K. Sheth,Gravity and large-scale nonlocal bias,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 083509, [1201.3614]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Saito, T

    S. Saito, T. Baldauf, Z. Vlah, U. Seljak, T. Okumura and P. McDonald,Understanding higher-order nonlocal halo bias at large scales by combining the power spectrum with the bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 123522, [1405.1447]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    Catelan, F

    P. Catelan, F. Lucchin, S. Matarrese and C. Porciani,The bias field of dark matter haloes, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.297(1998) 692–712, [astro-ph/9708067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  55. [55]

    Baldauf, U

    T. Baldauf, U. Seljak, V. Desjacques and P. McDonald,Evidence for Quadratic Tidal Tensor Bias from the Halo Bispectrum,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 083540, [1201.4827]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, D. Green and M. Zaldarriaga,Renormalized Halo Bias,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08(2014) 056, [1402.5916]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    M. M. Abidi and T. Baldauf,Cubic Halo Bias in Eulerian and Lagrangian Space,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.07(2018) 029, [1802.07622]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Eggemeier, R

    A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro, M. Crocce, A. Pezzotta and A. G. S´ anchez,Testing one-loop galaxy bias: Power spectrum,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 103530, [2006.09729]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    J. L. Tinker, B. E. Robertson, A. V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, M. S. Warren, G. Yepes et al.,The Large Scale Bias of Dark Matter Halos: Numerical Calibration and Model Tests,Astrophys. J. 724(2010) 878–886, [1001.3162]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [60]

    J. L. Tinker, A. V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, K. Abazajian, M. S. Warren, G. Yepes et al.,Toward a Halo Mass Function for Precision Cosmology: The Limits of Universality,Astrophys. J.688 (2008) 709–728, [0803.2706]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  61. [61]

    Paranjape, R

    A. Paranjape, R. K. Sheth and V. Desjacques,Excursion set peaks: a self-consistent model of dark halo abundances and clustering,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.431(May, 2013) 1503–1512, [1210.1483]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Baldauf, U

    T. Baldauf, U. Seljak, R. E. Smith, N. Hamaus and V. Desjacques,Halo stochasticity from exclusion and nonlinear clustering,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 083507, [1305.2917]. – 46 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    Dekel and O

    A. Dekel and O. Lahav,Stochastic Nonlinear Galaxy Biasing,Astrophys. J.520(1999) 24–34, [astro-ph/9806193]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  64. [64]

    Seljak and M

    U. Seljak and M. S. Warren,Large-scale bias and stochasticity of haloes and dark matter,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.355(2004) 129–136, [astro-ph/0403698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  65. [65]

    R. K. Sheth, K. C. Chan and R. Scoccimarro,Nonlocal Lagrangian bias,Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 083002, [1207.7117]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Zennaro, R

    M. Zennaro, R. E. Angulo, M. Pellejero-Ib´ a˜ nez, J. St¨ ucker, S. Contreras and G. Aric` o,The BACCO simulation project: biased tracers in real space,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.524(2023) 2407–2419, [2101.12187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    C. Modi, E. Castorina and U. Seljak,Halo bias in Lagrangian space: estimators and theoretical predictions,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.472(2017) 3959–3970, [1612.01621]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Lazeyras and F

    T. Lazeyras and F. Schmidt,Beyond LIMD bias: a measurement of the complete set of third-order halo bias parameters,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 008, [1712.07531]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Lazeyras, A

    T. Lazeyras, A. Barreira and F. Schmidt,Assembly bias in quadratic bias parameters of dark matter halos from forward modeling,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 063, [2106.14713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    J. S. Bullock, T. S. Kolatt, Y. Sigad, R. S. Somerville, A. V. Kravtsov, A. A. Klypin et al., Profiles of dark haloes: evolution, scatter, and environment,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.321 (2001) 559–575, [astro-ph/9908159]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [71]

    Ramakrishnan, A

    S. Ramakrishnan, A. Paranjape, O. Hahn and R. K. Sheth,Cosmic web anisotropy is the primary indicator of halo assembly bias,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.489(2019) 2977–2996, [1903.02007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    Borzyszkowski, C

    M. Borzyszkowski, C. Porciani, E. Romano-Diaz and E. Garaldi,ZOMG – I. How the cosmic web inhibits halo growth and generates assembly bias,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.469(2017) 594–611, [1610.04231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [73]

    Mansfield and A

    P. Mansfield and A. V. Kravtsov,The three causes of low-mass assembly bias,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.493(2020) 4763–4782, [1902.00030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah and M. White,Consistent modeling of velocity statistics and redshift-space distortions in one-loop perturbation theory,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.07(2020) 062, [2005.00523]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    J. U. Lange,nautilus: boosting Bayesian importance nested sampling with deep learning,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.525(2023) 3181, [2306.16923]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Pezzotta, M

    A. Pezzotta, M. Crocce, A. Eggemeier, A. G. S´ anchez and R. Scoccimarro,Testing one-loop galaxy bias: Cosmological constraints from the power spectrum,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 043531, [2102.08315]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Pezzotta, C

    Euclid Collaboration, A. Pezzotta, C. Moretti, M. Zennaro, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, M. Crocce et al.,Euclid preparation. XLI. Galaxy power spectrum modelling in real space, Astron. Astrophys.687(2024) A216, [2312.00679]

    arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Tidal shear and the consistency of microscopic Lagrangian halo approaches,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 017, [1711.06745]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    H. J. Mo and S. D. M. White,An analytic model for the spatial clustering of dark matter haloes,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.282(1996) 347, [astro-ph/9512127]. – 47 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996