Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Simulation-based inference has its own Dodelson-Schneider effect (but it knows that it does)

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Density-estimation simulation-based inference inflates posterior variances by at least the Dodelson-Schneider factor for the same simulation budget, while keeping reported coverage correct.

desk verdict Solid, careful controlled experiment showing density-estimation SBI does inflate posterior widths at finite simulation budgets and self-calibrates coverage; the abstract overstates the result by ignoring the paper's own NN-compression counterexample. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02311 v1 pith:G6VTLX3G submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Jed Homer , Oliver Friedrich , Daniel Gruen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords simulation-basedinferencecovarianceestimationDodelson-Schneidereffectnormalizingflowsneuralposteriorlikelihoodcoveragecosmicshear
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Cosmological analyses that assume a Gaussian likelihood must estimate the data covariance from simulations, and the noise in that estimate inflates both the width and the scatter of parameter contours—the Dodelson-Schneider effect. Simulation-based inference (SBI) is often assumed to sidestep this, because it learns the likelihood directly from simulated data and never forms a covariance matrix. The paper argues that this assumption is inaccurate: for the same simulation budget, density-estimation SBI returns posterior widths inflated by at least the Dodelson-Schneider factor. The difference is that SBI knows about its own inflation, widening its contours enough to keep 68% and 95% coverage correct at every simulation count. If true, SBI does not save simulations; for a modest 450-bin cosmic shear data vector it needs on the order of $4 \times 10^4$ simulations to approach Fisher-level posterior errors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Dodelson-Schneider factor, $f_{\rm DS}=1+\frac{(n_\xi-n_\pi)(n_s-n_\xi-2)}{(n_s-n_\xi-1)(n_s-n_\xi-4)}\approx 1+\frac{n_\xi-n_\pi}{n_s-n_\xi}$, which quantifies the factor by which the scatter of best-fit parameters exceeds the inverse Fisher matrix when the covariance is estimated from $n_s$ simulations. SBI posterior widths, averaged over 200 repeated experiments, are plotted against this benchmark as a function of the simulation count used to train the normalizing flows, with an additional $n_s$ simulations charged to covariance estimation or neural-network training when the covariance is unknown. The density estimation is carried by masked autoregressive flows and continuous normalizing flows fit by maximum likelihood, and the data reduction by linear score compression (with true, estimated, or diagonal-only covariance) or a neural-network regressor. The coverage statistic $F_\omega$—the fraction of repeated experiments in which the true parameters fall inside the $\omega$ credible region—is the quantity that tests whether SBI's contours correctly account for its own inflation.

What would settle it

Repeat the experimental protocol with a non-Gaussian likelihood or with nuisance parameters and compare SBI widths with the Dodelson-Schneider factor at the same simulation counts; the central claim would be overturned if any configuration produced widths below $f_{\rm DS}$ while maintaining nominal 68% coverage, for example at $n_s = 2000$ with a 450-component data vector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that density-estimation SBI—neural posterior estimation and neural likelihood estimation fit with masked autoregressive or continuous normalizing flows—suffers a posterior-variance inflation at finite simulation counts that is equal to or greater than the analytic Dodelson-Schneider inflation of a Gaussian likelihood analysis with a simulation-estimated covariance. The demonstration is a repeated-experiment protocol on a Gaussian linear model of a 450-component cosmic shear data vector with three cosmological parameters, comparing linear score compression using the true covariance, a simulation-estimated covariance, its diagonal only, and a neural-network compression. At low simulation counts the SBI widths exceed the Dodelson-Schneider factor, and only near $4 \times 10^4$ simulations do they approach the Fisher errors. Across all counts and compression methods, the SBI posteriors remain calibrated: the true parameters fall inside the reported 68% and 95% regions at the expected rates. The authors conclude that the assumption that SBI needs fewer simulations than covariance-based Gaussian likelihood analysis is inaccurate, and that SBI does not remove the limitations of a finite simulation budget but absorbs them into its contour widths.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results rest on a Gaussian linear model with exactly known expectation value, no nuisance parameters, and an analytic covariance, so the specific numbers may not transfer to the non-Gaussian, non-linear, high-dimensional settings where SBI is actually motivated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SBI inflates posterior widths at least as much as the Dodelson-Schneider factor, then using SBI to avoid covariance estimation does not reduce the simulation budget; a Gaussian analysis with the DS13 correction remains at least as tight for the same number of simulations.
  • Correct coverage at every simulation count means SBI's reported contours are honest: they can be interpreted as credible regions even at low $n_s$, but the price is conservative widths that dilute parameter information.
  • Since the inflation grows roughly as $(n_\xi-n_\pi)/(n_s-n_\xi)$, next-generation data vectors with larger $n_\xi$ will require proportionally more simulations for SBI to reach Fisher-level constraints, unless the covariance structure is favourable to neural compression.
  • The ranking of compression methods is not fixed: with a covariance that has large off-diagonal elements, neural-network and diagonal-only compressions become strongly suboptimal, so the choice of summary statistic can dominate the SBI simulation requirement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these results carry over to non-Gaussian, non-linear settings, the practical implication is that current SBI analyses using a few thousand simulations may be reporting correctly calibrated but much wider posteriors than their analytic-likelihood counterparts, and the gap will grow with nuisance parameters.
  • A testable extension would be to run the same repeated-experiment protocol on a non-Gaussian likelihood, such as a log-normal density field or a field-level summary; if SBI widths still track the Dodelson-Schneider factor, the inflation is a general finite-simulation effect rather than an artifact of the Gaussian linear model.
  • The paper's 'SBI knows' result suggests that SBI could serve as a coverage-calibrated fallback for settings where no analytic covariance exists, but only if the user accepts the widened contours; a calibration step may still be needed when the density estimator is misspecified or trained with too few simulations.
  • One could also measure the effective simulation budget at which SBI beats a covariance-estimation analysis in terms of width at fixed coverage, rather than width at fixed $n_s$; this would give a practical rule for when SBI is worth its compute.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether density-estimation simulation-based inference (NPE and NLE with masked autoregressive and continuous normalizing flows) suffers effects analogous to the Dodelson-Schneider (DS13) inflation of parameter posteriors when a covariance matrix is estimated from a finite number of simulations. The authors use a Gaussian linear model with a known analytic posterior, a 450-component cosmic-shear-like data vector, three parameters, and four compression schemes (linear with true covariance, linear with estimated covariance, linear with diagonal covariance, and a neural-network compressor). They repeat experiments with independently sampled data vectors and covariance matrices, measuring marginal posterior widths and frequentist coverage as functions of the number of simulations. The main claims are that SBI posteriors are inflated at finite simulation counts, that the inflation is equal to or greater than the DS13 factor for the same simulation budget, that SBI nevertheless maintains correct 68% and 95% coverage, and that the common assumption that SBI needs fewer simulations than covariance-based Gaussian likelihood analysis is inaccurate. The paper also reports that neural-network compression can, at low simulation counts, yield posterior widths below the DS13-corrected covariance-analysis widths, and that the ordering of compression methods depends on the covariance structure.

Significance. If properly scoped, the paper is a useful and timely cautionary result for cosmological SBI applications. Its strengths are the controlled experimental design: a Gaussian linear model with an analytic posterior, analytic benchmarks from DS13 and the Hartlap correction, repeated experiments to measure coverage, and additional experiments in the appendices on the role of the fitted expectation value (Appendix D), scatter of posterior means (Appendix E), and covariance structure (Appendix F). The paper is openly available with code, and its central qualitative message, that density-estimation SBI does not automatically avoid finite-simulation variance inflation and that this inflation is reflected in correctly calibrated but wider contours, is worth publishing. The main weakness is that the headline claim as stated in the abstract is stronger than the paper's own neural-network results support, and the quantitative conclusions are tied to a single idealized Gaussian linear model. These issues are reparable by scoping and qualification rather than by new derivations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.1; Figure 2] The abstract and the opening of Section 6 state that SBI suffers a posterior-variance inflation 'equal or greater' than the DS13 factor for the same number of simulations. This is contradicted by the paper's own Figure 2 and Section 4.1, where the neural-network compression points (squares, total cost 2ns) lie below the dashed DS13 curve for low ns, and the text explicitly says that this compression 'allows one to obtain an average posterior width that is smaller than that of a posterior using an estimated covariance adjusted with the DS13 factor.' The later caveat in Section 5 ('can be smaller than the DS13 posterior widths ... for a small number of simulations') does not repair the abstract's unqualified claim. Please either restrict the central claim to linear compression with an estimated covariance, or state the neural-network exception in the abstract and in the conclusions.
  2. [Section 3.6; Section 6] The paper's comparison of simulation counts omits a significant portion of the actual simulation budget. Section 3.6 describes hyperparameter optimization using an additional 10^4 independent simulations, and the final paragraph of Section 6 acknowledges that the results depend on this extra set. Thus the total cost of the tested SBI pipelines is 2ns + 10^4 simulations, not 2ns as implied by the abstract's 'same number of simulations' phrasing. Please state the extra hyperparameter budget wherever the abstract and conclusions compare SBI with a 2ns covariance-estimation analysis, and discuss how the comparison would change if hyperparameters were fixed a priori.
  3. [Section 5; Conclusions] The quantitative conclusions (e.g., errors approaching Fisher variances only around 4 x 10^4 simulations, and the statement that the required number will be far larger for next-generation surveys) are extrapolations from a single Gaussian linear model with nxi = 450, npi = 3, no nuisance parameters, and an exactly known expectation value. The paper itself notes in Section 5 that the problem will likely be worse in non-Gaussian, non-linear settings, and Appendix F shows that changing only the covariance structure can reverse the ranking of compression methods. These extrapolations are plausible but not demonstrated. Please either explicitly scope the abstract and conclusions to the Gaussian linear model and the compression methods tested, or provide evidence that the quantitative findings transfer to the more complex settings for which SBI is intended.
  4. [Section 4.2; Figure 3] The coverage claim that SBI 'knows' about its finite-simulation inflation is based on coverage fractions measured over repeated experiments with independently drawn data vectors and covariance matrices, which is the right frequentist check. However, the coverage results are presented without quantitative error bars or a formal statement of the expected sampling uncertainty for 200 experiments. Since the widths in Figure 2 are also shown without error bars, the reader cannot assess whether the differences from the DS13 lines and the claimed agreement with nominal coverage are statistically significant. Please add error bars, shaded intervals, or an explicit statement of the Monte Carlo uncertainty for the reported width and coverage measurements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Figure C.1 caption] The caption of Figure C.1 says 'Similar to Figure 3' but the figure shows posterior variance against the number of simulations, so it should refer to Figure 2.
  2. [Section 3.4, after Eq. (17)] The sentence 'To obtain an approximate likelihood p_phi(pi|x) (for NLE) or posterior model p_phi(x|pi) (for NPE)' appears to have the likelihood and posterior reversed; NLE estimates p(x|pi) and NPE estimates p(pi|x). Please correct the notation.
  3. [Appendix F, Eq. (1)] Equation numbering restarts at (1) in Appendix F; please renumber the appendix equation to avoid confusion with the main text numbering.
  4. [Figures 2 and C.1] The posterior-width points are plotted without error bars even though 200 experiments were performed. Please add uncertainties or state in the caption that the error bars are smaller than the marker size.
  5. [Section 3.2, experimental setup] The description of the sequential simulation draws is dense; it would help to state explicitly that when the covariance is estimated, the first ns simulations are used only for the covariance estimate and the second ns simulations are used for the density-estimator training, with the same estimated covariance applied in the compression of both sets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical comparisons against external analytic benchmarks and true posteriors, not reductions to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are comparisons of measured SBI posteriors against external analytic benchmarks (the DS13 factor in Equation 7, the Hartlap correction in Equation 3, and the Fisher forecast in Equation 13) and against the true parameters in repeated experiments (Equation 23). The SBI posterior widths and coverages are measured from simulations conditioned on independent noisy datavectors and independently sampled covariance matrices; the DS13 factor is used only as a comparison benchmark and is not fitted to SBI outputs, nor does it enter the flow training or compression as an input. The claim that SBI 'knows' about the inflation is established by the independent coverage test F_omega, which uses true parameters and posterior samples from repeated identical experiments, so it is not definitionally guaranteed. Self-citations to Friedrich & Eifler (2017) and Percival et al. (2021) are contextual remarks about existing covariance-estimation results, not load-bearing steps in the SBI measurement. The apparent tension that neural-network compression widths fall below the DS13 line at low ns (Section 4.1) is a potential correctness or qualification issue with the abstract's unqualified 'equal or greater' phrasing, but it is not circularity: the counterexample comes from the paper's own measured data rather than being assumed as input. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or statistical entities; the 'Dodelson-Schneider effect for SBI' is a conceptual analogy applied to existing methods. The free parameters are the hand-chosen problem dimensions (nξ, nπ) and the architecture choices whose values affect the measured posterior widths.

free parameters (4)
  • nξ = 450 datavector components = 450
    Datavector dimension from the DES-Y3-like cosmic shear setup; the DS13 inflation factor and the number of simulations required depend strongly on nξ (a hand-chosen regime, not an independent empirical constant).
  • nπ = 3 model parameters = Ωm, σ8, w0
    Parameter count enters the DS13 factor and the compression; chosen to match a simple cosmological inference example.
  • Normalizing flow hyperparameters = MAF: 5 MADE transforms, 2x32 units; CNF: 8 hidden units, dt=0.1; lr=1e-3; patience 40-50
    Selected by optuna on an extra 10^4 training/test pairs with known covariance; measured posterior widths and coverage depend on this optimization, so they are conditional on these choices.
  • Neural-network compressor architecture = unspecified (linear layers with nonlinearities)
    Only described as 'simple linear layers and non-linear activations' in Section 3.3; the posterior widths for the NN compression depend on this unspecified choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Data are generated from a Gaussian linear model with known covariance Σ and uniform priors on Ωm, σ8, w0.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.2; this is the idealized testbed in which the true posterior is known and the DS13 result is exact.
  • standard math The Gaussian likelihood ansatz and the DS13 scatter formula (equations 5-8) are exact for the linear model.
    Dodelson and Schneider 2013; used as the analytic benchmark for the Gaussian covariance-estimation case.
  • standard math The Hartlap factor (equations 3-4) debiases the estimated precision matrix.
    Hartlap et al. 2006; used for the corrected Gaussian benchmark.
  • standard math The sample covariance S is Wishart distributed and independent of the sample mean.
    Used implicitly for the DS13 and Hartlap results and in Appendix D to separate expectation-fit noise.
  • domain assumption Normalizing flows can represent the true Gaussian likelihood/posterior in the infinite-simulation limit, and the chosen models are sufficiently expressive.
    Empirically supported by the Σ=Σ control reaching Fisher widths, but assumed for the interpretation of the ns-dependent inflation.
  • domain assumption Linear compression (equation 12) with the true covariance is lossless for this model.
    Section 3.2; a known property of score/MOPED compression for Gaussian linear models.
  • domain assumption The neural-network compressor trained with mean-squared error provides a summary with a tractable likelihood for the flow.
    Section 3.3; the paper notes the MSE loss provides no unbiasedness guarantee, and the summary distribution is learned by the flow.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation-based inference has its own Dodelson-Schneider effect (but it knows that it does)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G6VTLX3G

@misc{pith2026241202311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation-based inference has its own Dodelson-Schneider effect (but it knows that it does)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G6VTLX3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02311}
}
read the original abstract

Making inferences about physical properties of the Universe requires knowledge of the data likelihood. A Gaussian distribution is commonly assumed for the uncertainties with a covariance matrix estimated from a set of simulations. The noise in such covariance estimates causes two problems: it distorts the width of the parameter contours, and it adds scatter to the location of those contours which is not captured by the widths themselves. For non-Gaussian likelihoods, an approximation may be derived via Simulation-Based Inference (SBI). It is often implicitly assumed that parameter constraints from SBI analyses, which do not use covariance matrices, are not affected by the same problems as parameter estimation with a covariance matrix estimated from simulations. We investigate whether SBI suffers from effects similar to those of covariance estimation in Gaussian likelihoods. We use Neural Posterior and Likelihood Estimation with continuous and masked autoregressive normalizing flows for density estimation. We fit our approximate posterior models to simulations drawn from a Gaussian linear model, so that the SBI result can be compared to the true posterior. We test linear and neural network based compression, demonstrating that neither methods circumvent the issues of covariance estimation. SBI suffers an inflation of posterior variance that is equal or greater than the analytical result in covariance estimation for Gaussian likelihoods for the same number of simulations. The assumption that SBI requires a smaller number of simulations than covariance estimation for a Gaussian likelihood analysis is inaccurate. The limitations of traditional likelihood analysis with simulation-based covariance remain for SBI with a finite simulation budget. Despite these issues, we show that SBI correctly draws the true posterior contour given enough simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effects of an estimated data error distribution on the posterior contours and their locations. We show estimates πˆ of parameters π and the estimated 1 − σ confidence contours. The black dotted contours show the posterior derived with the true covariance Σ from noiseless data. Left: The results from a Gaussian likelihood analysis. In red, the posterior derived with the estimated covariance S from 600 simulations. In… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average model parameter posterior variance, reported by the methods compared in this work, conditioned on noisy datavectors estimated with Neural Likelihood estimation using a masked autoregressive flow. The colour-coded dashed lines show the (Fisher) variances that would have been measured if the data covariance was known exactly and used in a Gaussian likelihood ansatz with a flat prior. Cross points label posteri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Coverage Fω, i.e. how often the true cosmology in the experiment is found inside the 68% (1 − σ) and 95% (2 − σ)) credible regions of the estimated posterior (see Equation 23) against the number of simulations ns used for the training set. Shown is the result for Neural Likelihood Estimation (with a MAF model) for independently sampled data vectors and data covariance matrices in a series of repeated experiments wit… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Average model parameter posterior variance conditioned on noisy datavectors estimated with Neural Posterior Estimation using a masked autoregressive flow. The same marginal Fisher variances, DS13 factors and compression methods are used for this plot as in [PITH_FULL_…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Simulation-Efficient Cosmological Inference with Multi-Fidelity SBI

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-fidelity SBI method using feature matching and knowledge distillation outperforms weight-initialization transfer learning at small high-fidelity simulation budgets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2024, A Parameter-Masked Mock Data Challenge for Beyond-Two-Point Galaxy Clustering Statistics

    2pt Collaboration, Krause, E., Kobayashi, Y., et al. 2024, A Parameter-Masked Mock Data Challenge for Beyond-Two-Point Galaxy Clustering Statistics

    2024

  4. [4]

    Advani, M. S. & Saxe, A. M. 2017, High-dimensional dynamics of generalization error in neural networks

    2017

  5. [5]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A5

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A5

    2020

  6. [6]

    2015, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 043

    Akeret, J., Refregier, A., Amara, A., Seehars, S., & Hasner, C. 2015, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 043

    2015

  7. [7]

    2019, in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., & Koyama, M. 2019, in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    2019

  8. [8]

    & Wandelt, B

    Alsing, J. & Wandelt, B. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 476, L60

    2018

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    & Wandelt, B

    Alsing, J. & Wandelt, B. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5093–5103

    2019

  2. [10]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 2874

    Alsing, J., Wandelt, B., & Feeney, S. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 2874

    2018

  3. [11]

    2022, Physical Review D, 105

    Amon, A., Gruen, D., Troxel, M., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 105

    2022

  4. [12]

    2003, An Introduction To Multivariate Statistical Analysis

    Anderson, T. 2003, An Introduction To Multivariate Statistical Analysis. (Wiley)

    2003

  5. [13]

    2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs

    2018

  6. [14]

    Charnock, T., Lavaux, G., & Wandelt, B. D. 2018, Physical Review D, 97

    2018

  7. [15]

    Chen, R. T. Q., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J., & Duvenaud, D. 2019, Neural Ordinary Differential Equations

    2019

  8. [16]

    K., Witte, S

    Cole, A., Miller, B. K., Witte, S. J., et al. 2022, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022, 004

    2022

  9. [17]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 46

    Contarini, S., Pisani, A., Hamaus, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 46

    2023

  10. [18]

    2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 30055

    Cranmer, K., Brehmer, J., & Louppe, G. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 30055

    2020

  11. [19]

    2016, Approximating Likelihood Ratios with Calibrated Discriminative Classifiers

    Cranmer, K., Pavez, J., & Louppe, G. 2016, Approximating Likelihood Ratios with Calibrated Discriminative Classifiers

    2016

  12. [20]

    B., et al

    Dark Energy Survey Collaboration , Abbott , T., Abdalla , F. B., et al. 2016, , 460, 1270

    2016

  13. [21]

    T., Cautun, M., Giblin, B., et al

    Davies, C. T., Cautun, M., Giblin, B., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4729–4746

    2022

  14. [22]

    S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A

    de Jong , R. S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2019

  15. [23]

    2017, Density estimation using Real NVP

    Dinh, L., Sohl-Dickstein, J., & Bengio, S. 2017, Density estimation using Real NVP

    2017

  16. [24]

    & Schneider, M

    Dodelson, S. & Schneider, M. D. 2013, Physical Review D, 88

    2013

  17. [25]

    2019, Neural Spline Flows

    Durkan, C., Bekasov, A., Murray, I., & Papamakarios, G. 2019, Neural Spline Flows

    2019

  18. [26]

    2021, , 507, 1746

    Eifler , T., Miyatake , H., Krause , E., et al. 2021, , 507, 1746

    2021

  19. [27]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 9581–9593

    Fang, X., Krause, E., Eifler, T., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 9581–9593

    2023

  20. [28]

    2021, Phys

    Fluri, J., Kacprzak, T., Refregier, A., Lucchi, A., & Hofmann, T. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 123526

    2021

  21. [29]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 3125–3165

    Friedrich, O., Andrade-Oliveira, F., Camacho, H., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 3125–3165

    2021

  22. [30]

    & Eifler, T

    Friedrich, O. & Eifler, T. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4150

    2017

  23. [31]

    2018, Phys

    Friedrich, O., Gruen, D., DeRose, J., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023508

    2018

  24. [32]

    F., & Gruen, D

    Friedrich, O., Seitz, S., Eifler, T. F., & Gruen, D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 2662

    2015

  25. [33]

    Gatti, M., Jeffrey, N., Whiteway, L., et al. 2023, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: simulation-based cosmological inference with wavelet harmonics, scattering transforms, and moments of weak lensing mass maps I: validation on simulations

    2023

  26. [34]

    M., & Alsing, J

    Gerardi, F., Feeney, S. M., & Alsing, J. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 083531

    2021

  27. [35]

    2015, MADE: Masked Autoencoder for Distribution Estimation

    Germain, M., Gregor, K., Murray, I., & Larochelle, H. 2015, MADE: Masked Autoencoder for Distribution Estimation

    2015

  28. [36]

    Glöckler, M., Deistler, M., & Macke, J. H. 2022, Variational methods for simulation-based inference

    2022

  29. [37]

    Grathwohl, W., Chen, R. T. Q., Bettencourt, J., Sutskever, I., & Duvenaud, D. 2018, FFJORD: Free-form Continuous Dynamics for Scalable Reversible Generative Models

    2018

  30. [38]

    S., Nonnenmacher, M., & Macke, J

    Greenberg, D. S., Nonnenmacher, M., & Macke, J. H. 2019, Automatic Posterior Transformation for Likelihood-Free Inference

    2019

  31. [39]

    2018, Phys

    Gruen, D., Friedrich, O., Krause, E., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023507

    2018

  32. [40]

    2023 a , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120, e2218810120

    Hahn, C., Eickenberg, M., Ho, S., et al. 2023 a , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120, e2218810120

    2023

  33. [41]

    2023 b , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 010

    Hahn, C., Eickenberg, M., Ho, S., et al. 2023 b , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 010

    2023

  34. [42]

    Halder, A., Friedrich, O., Seitz, S., & Varga, T. N. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 2780

    2021

  35. [43]

    & Taylor, A

    Hall, A. & Taylor, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 189–207

    2018

  36. [44]

    2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 023

    Hamaus, N., Pisani, A., Choi, J.-A., et al. 2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 023

    2020

  37. [45]

    2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 464, 399–404

    Hartlap, J., Simon, P., & Schneider, P. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 464, 399–404

    2006

  38. [46]

    F., Jimenez, R., & Lahav, O

    Heavens, A. F., Jimenez, R., & Lahav, O. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 317, 965

    2000

  39. [47]

    F., Sellentin, E., & Jaffe, A

    Heavens, A. F., Sellentin, E., & Jaffe, A. H. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3440–3451

    2020

  40. [48]

    2020, Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    Ho, J., Jain, A., & Abbeel, P. 2020, Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    2020

  41. [49]

    M., Hahn, C., et al

    Hou, J., Dizgah, A. M., Hahn, C., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 103528

    2024

  42. [50]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  43. [51]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 954

    Jeffrey, N., Alsing, J., & Lanusse, F. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 954

    2020

  44. [52]

    2024, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: likelihood-free, simulation-based w CDM inference with neural compression of weak-lensing map statistics

    Jeffrey, N., Whiteway, L., Gatti, M., et al. 2024, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: likelihood-free, simulation-based w CDM inference with neural compression of weak-lensing map statistics

    2024

  45. [53]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A129

    Joachimi, B., Lin, C.-A., Asgari, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 646, A129

    2021

  46. [54]

    & Fluri, J

    Kacprzak, T. & Fluri, J. 2022, Phys. Rev. X, 12, 031029

    2022

  47. [55]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.04662

    Kacprzak , T., Fluri , J., Schneider , A., Refregier , A., & Stadel , J. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.04662

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 3653–3673

    Kacprzak, T., Kirk, D., Friedrich, O., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 3653–3673

    2016

  49. [57]

    Kaufman , G. M. 1967, Report No. 6710, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics, Catholic University of Louvain, Heverlee, Belgium

    1967

  50. [58]

    2021, PhD thesis, University of Oxford

    Kidger, P. 2021, PhD thesis, University of Oxford

    2021

  51. [59]

    2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901

    Kilbinger, M. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901

    2015

  52. [60]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. 2017, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

    2017

  53. [61]

    Kingma, D. P. & Dhariwal, P. 2018, Glow: Generative Flow with Invertible 1x1 Convolutions

    2018

  54. [62]

    & Eifler, T

    Krause, E. & Eifler, T. 2017 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2100

    2017

  55. [63]

    & Eifler, T

    Krause, E. & Eifler, T. 2017 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 2100–2112

    2017

  56. [64]

    2011, Euclid Definition Study Report

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, Euclid Definition Study Report

    2011

  57. [65]

    2018, Phys

    Leclercq, F. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 063511

    2018

  58. [66]

    & Heavens, A

    Leclercq, F. & Heavens, A. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 506, L85

    2021

  59. [67]

    2024, Phys

    Lemos, P., Parker, L., Hahn, C., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 083536

    2024

  60. [68]

    Levi, M. E. et al. 2019 [ [arXiv] 1907.10688 ]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    2023 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 6167

    Lin, K., von Wietersheim-Kramsta, M., Joachimi, B., & Feeney, S. 2023 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 6167

    2023

  62. [70]

    2023 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 6167–6180

    Lin, K., von wietersheim Kramsta, M., Joachimi, B., & Feeney, S. 2023 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 6167–6180

    2023

  63. [71]

    2015, A&A, 583, A70

    Lin, Chieh-An & Kilbinger, Martin . 2015, A&A, 583, A70

    2015

  64. [72]

    A., & Schneider, P

    Linke, L., Heydenreich, S., Burger, P. A., & Schneider, P. 2023, A&A, 672, A185

    2023

  65. [73]

    Lipman, Y., Chen, R. T. Q., Ben-Hamu, H., Nickel, M., & Le, M. 2023, Flow Matching for Generative Modeling

    2023

  66. [74]

    J., Bassetto, G., et al

    Lueckmann, J.-M., Goncalves, P. J., Bassetto, G., et al. 2017, Flexible statistical inference for mechanistic models of neural dynamics

    2017

  67. [75]

    L., Charnock, T., Alsing, J., & Wandelt, B

    Makinen, T. L., Charnock, T., Alsing, J., & Wandelt, B. D. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 049

    2021

  68. [76]

    2023, Sensitivity Analysis of Simulation-Based Inference for Galaxy Clustering

    Modi, C., Pandey, S., Ho, M., et al. 2023, Sensitivity Analysis of Simulation-Based Inference for Galaxy Clustering

    2023

  69. [77]

    Mohammad, F. G. & Percival, W. J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1289

    2022

  70. [78]

    Murphy, K. P. 2022, Probabilistic Machine Learning: An introduction (MIT Press)

    2022

  71. [79]

    M., Gazta \ n aga , E., & Croton , D

    Norberg , P., Baugh , C. M., Gazta \ n aga , E., & Croton , D. J. 2009, , 396, 19

    2009

  72. [80]

    2019, Neural Density Estimation and Likelihood-free Inference

    Papamakarios, G. 2019, Neural Density Estimation and Likelihood-free Inference

    2019

  73. [81]

    J., Mohamed, S., & Lakshminarayanan, B

    Papamakarios, G., Nalisnick, E., Rezende, D. J., Mohamed, S., & Lakshminarayanan, B. 2021, Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inference

    2021

  74. [82]

    2018, Masked Autoregressive Flow for Density Estimation

    Papamakarios, G., Pavlakou, T., & Murray, I. 2018, Masked Autoregressive Flow for Density Estimation

    2018

  75. [83]

    C., & Murray, I

    Papamakarios, G., Sterratt, D. C., & Murray, I. 2019, Sequential Neural Likelihood: Fast Likelihood-free Inference with Autoregressive Flows

    2019

  76. [84]

    J., Friedrich, O., Sellentin, E., & Heavens, A

    Percival, W. J., Friedrich, O., Sellentin, E., & Heavens, A. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 3207–3221

    2021

  77. [85]

    J., Ross, A

    Percival, W. J., Ross, A. J., Sánchez, A. G., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 2531–2541

    2014

  78. [86]

    & Mesinger, A

    Prelogović, D. & Mesinger, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 4239

    2023

  79. [87]

    & Mesinger, A

    Prelogović, D. & Mesinger, A. 2024, How informative are summaries of the cosmic 21-cm signal?

    2024

  80. [88]

    Reeves, A., Nicola, A., Refregier, A., Kacprzak, T., & Valle, L. F. M. P. 2023, 12 2 pt combined probes: pipeline, neutrino mass, and data compression

    2023

  81. [89]

    Rezende, D. J. & Mohamed, S. 2016, Variational Inference with Normalizing Flows

    2016

  82. [90]

    2006, Weak Gravitational Lensing (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 269–451

    Schneider, P. 2006, Weak Gravitational Lensing (Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 269–451

    2006

  83. [91]

    2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 396, 1–19

    Schneider, P., van Waerbeke, L., Kilbinger, M., & Mellier, Y. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 396, 1–19

    2002

  84. [92]

    & Heavens, A

    Sellentin, E. & Heavens, A. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 456, L132–L136

    2015

  85. [93]

    P., et al

    Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D. P., et al. 2021, Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations

    2021

  86. [94]

    Tabak, E. G. & Turner, C. V. 2013, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 66, 145

    2013

  87. [95]

    Tabak, E. G. & Vanden-Eijnden, E. 2010, Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 8, 217

    2010

  88. [96]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 145

    Tam, S.-I., Umetsu, K., & Amara, A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 145

    2022

  89. [97]

    & Joachimi, B

    Taylor, A. & Joachimi, B. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2728

    2014

  90. [98]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 1928

    Taylor, A., Joachimi, B., & Kitching, T. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 1928

    2013

  91. [99]

    N., & Heavens, A

    Tegmark, M., Taylor, A. N., & Heavens, A. F. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 480, 22

    1997

  92. [100]

    & Schmidt, F

    Tucci, B. & Schmidt, F. 2023, EFTofLSS meets simulation-based inference: _8 from biased tracers

    2023

  93. [101]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 4006

    Uhlemann, C., Friedrich, O., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Banerjee, A., & Codis, S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 4006

    2020

  94. [102]

    & Dvorkin, C

    Valogiannis, G. & Dvorkin, C. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103534

    2022

  95. [103]

    2021, , 915, 71

    Villaescusa-Navarro , F., Angl \'e s-Alc \'a zar , D., Genel , S., et al. 2021, , 915, 71

    2021

  96. [104]

    2020, , 250, 2

    Villaescusa-Navarro , F., Hahn , C., Massara , E., et al. 2020, , 250, 2

    2020

  97. [105]

    & Villaescusa-Navarro, F

    Villanueva-Domingo, P. & Villaescusa-Navarro, F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 115

    2022

  98. [106]

    Weyant, A., Schafer, C., & Wood-Vasey, W. M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 116

    2013

  99. [107]

    & Padmanabhan, N

    White, M. & Padmanabhan, N. 2015, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015, 058

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.