Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Cosmological Constraints with Void Lensing I: the Simulation-Based Inference Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulation-based inference recovers unbiased cosmological parameters from void lensing, even though no analytical model of void lensing exists.

desk verdict First SBI void-lensing pipeline with careful noise-free validation, but its own appendix shows shape noise collapses the signal to priors, so the observational claim is not yet backed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15149 v1 pith:L7RX7VYR submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.CO

Chen Su , Huanyuan Shan , Cheng Zhao , Wenshuo Xu , Jiajun Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmicvoidsvoidlensingsimulation-basedinferenceweakgravitationalneuralposteriorestimationgalaxy-haloconnectioncosmologicalparametersFastPMsimulations
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper establishes that void lensing, the gravitational shear signal around cosmic voids, can be used for cosmological inference without any analytical model of the effect. The authors replace the missing likelihood with a neural posterior estimator trained on forward-modeled mock observations that include cosmology and a galaxy-halo connection. On held-out mocks and on multiple realizations of a fiducial cosmology, the estimator recovers $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$ with mean values consistent with the input truth and error bars that pass a coverage test. The payoff is that void lensing, which has resisted analytic modeling, can still be exploited as a cosmological probe. The paper's own results are noise-free, and its appendix shows that realistic shape noise weakens the constraints substantially.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the end-to-end forward model feeding a neural posterior estimator. FastPM particle-mesh simulations with $1024^3$ particles in a $1\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Gpc}$ box, force resolution $B=2$, and 40 time steps generate dark matter fields; rockstar identifies halos; halo abundance matching with a scatter parameter $\sigma$ populates galaxies; DIVE constructs void catalogs; and the void-matter cross-correlation is converted to the excess surface density $\Delta\Sigma$ using the integral relation between tangential shear and convergence. The resulting 15-dimensional $\Delta\Sigma(R_p/R_v)$ data vectors are paired with their input parameters ($\Omega_m$, $S_8$, $\sigma$) to train an ensemble of three masked autoregressive flow and three mixture density network estimators, and the posteriors are validated with the TARP coverage metric.

What would settle it

Train the same estimator on the paper's mocks, then run the pipeline on high-fidelity N-body mocks with known input cosmology; if the posterior means are offset by more than the reported $1\sigma$ uncertainties, or if TARP coverage fails on the new data, the claim of unbiased parameter recovery from void lensing is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a simulation-based inference pipeline can recover unbiased posterior distributions for $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$ from void lensing excess surface density data vectors, despite the absence of an analytical void lensing model. It trains an ensemble of masked autoregressive flows and mixture density networks as a neural posterior estimator on 10,000 mocks built from 1,000 cosmologies simulated with FastPM, with ten halo abundance matching scatter values per cosmology. Validations against held-out mocks show predicted means scattering around the truth consistently with the estimated $1\sigma$ uncertainties, TARP coverage follows the diagonal, and the average of 200 fiducial-cosmology realizations centers on the truth. The paper also finds a strong $\Omega_m$-$S_8$ anti-correlation ($\rho=-0.85$) while the galaxy-halo connection parameter is only weakly correlated with either cosmological parameter ($|\rho|<0.25$), and shows in an appendix that including Stage-III or Stage-IV shape noise degrades the constraints substantially.

Load-bearing premise

All validation uses mocks produced by the same forward model (FastPM with force resolution $B=2$, 40 steps, rockstar halos, HAM galaxies, DIVE voids, and a projected-profile lensing signal that ignores shape noise), so if that model is a poor description of the real Universe, the reported unbiased posteriors will not transfer to observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Void lensing can yield cosmological parameter constraints without an analytic likelihood, so the analysis is no longer blocked by the absence of a void lensing model.
  • The galaxy-halo connection can be absorbed into the forward model as a nuisance parameter; because $\sigma$ is only weakly degenerate with $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$, marginalizing over it does not strongly degrade the cosmological constraints.
  • The same simulation-based inference recipe transfers to other summary statistics whose likelihoods are intractable but whose forward models are runnable.
  • Posterior evaluation is fast after training, since neural posterior estimation avoids MCMC sampling.
  • The noise-free constraints are optimistic: Appendix A shows that Stage-III and Stage-IV shape noise broadens the posteriors substantially, so extracting useful information from real data will require optimized void size bins, tomography, or data compression.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the validation is self-consistent, the next test is to run the trained estimator on mocks from a higher-fidelity N-body code; if the posterior means shift, the fast gravity approximation is the first component to blame.
  • The strong $\Omega_m$-$S_8$ anti-correlation suggests that combining this void-lensing probe with a clustering-based simulation-based inference pipeline in the same forward model could break the degeneracy without any new analytic theory.
  • The shape-noise result implies a concrete extension: adding tomographic source bins or a compression network to the forward model should restore constraining power, and this is directly testable in the same self-consistent framework.
  • If real-data application is the goal, the forward model must add photo-z scatter, shear calibration, and source redshift distributions; the current validation cannot detect errors from their omission.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a simulation-based inference (SBI) framework for cosmological parameter estimation from void lensing. The forward model starts from Omega_m and S8, runs FastPM simulations, identifies halos with rockstar, populates galaxies with Halo Abundance Matching including a scatter parameter sigma, finds voids with DIVE, and measures a 15-bin void lensing excess surface density profile. One thousand cosmologies with ten HAM scatter values each yield 10,000 mock data vectors; the authors train an ensemble of Masked Autoregressive Flows and Mixture Density Network neural posterior estimators using the ltu-ili package. Validation is carried out on held-out cosmologies, on 200 independent realizations of a fiducial cosmology, and with the TARP coverage metric; the noise-free analyses recover unbiased Omega_m and S8 with approximately calibrated uncertainties. Appendix A adds Stage-III and Stage-IV shape noise and finds that the posteriors become almost indistinguishable from the priors.

Significance. If viewed strictly as a mock-data methods paper, the contribution is solid and useful: the internal validation is well designed, with held-out cosmologies, an explicit nuisance parameter for the galaxy-halo connection, 200 fiducial realizations, and TARP coverage checks. The use of public simulation and inference codes aids reproducibility. The critical limitation is that the headline constraints come from a noise-free data vector: the only noise-aware test in the paper, Appendix A, shows that realistic shape noise destroys the constraining power of the chosen 15-bin ESD summary statistic. The paper therefore establishes that SBI can learn a posterior from noise-free mocks of the same forward model, but it does not establish the observational applicability promised in the abstract. The self-consistency of the validation is acknowledged in Sec. 6, and that acknowledgment is itself a strength; however, the abstract and conclusions should be aligned with this limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 5, Appendix A] The abstract and Sec. 5 claim that SBI can effectively learn posterior distributions for Omega_m and S8 from void lensing, and the abstract extends this to "the potential to apply void lensing analysis to observational data." Appendix A (Fig. A.1) directly undercuts this extension: when Stage-III or Stage-IV shape noise is injected through the only noise-aware procedure in the paper, the posteriors for Omega_m, S8, and sigma are "almost similar to the priors." Taking this test at face value, the tight contours in Figs. 8-10 are properties of a noiseless simulation summary, not of an observable, and no evidence is provided that the chosen 15-bin ESD data vector remains informative at realistic noise levels. Please either revise the abstract and conclusions to scope the claims explicitly to noise-free mock data, or add a demonstration that a modified data vector (for example, with tomographic redshift bins, optimized void-radius selection, or learned compression) retains constraining power under realistic shape noise.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 6] The ESD summary statistic is computed from projected matter profiles around voids, with no source redshift distribution or shape noise in the main pipeline, and with the same forward model used for both training and validation. Consequently, any error in the modeling steps (FastPM with B=2 and 40 steps, rockstar halos, HAM galaxies, DIVE voids, and the projection approximation to lensing) is invisible to the validation. The authors acknowledge this in Sec. 6, which is commendable, but the Appendix A statement that "our noise-free void lensing model is accurate enough" is not justified by self-consistency: a posterior width much smaller than the shape-noise level says nothing about the bias introduced by the approximate forward model. A calibration test against a higher-fidelity N-body or ray-tracing pipeline, or at minimum a quantitative estimate of the bias from each approximation, is needed before the framework can be presented as observationally ready.
  3. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 5.2] The validation statistics in Figs. 5 and 6 are described as covering 1,000 validation sets, but these contain only 100 independent cosmologies; each cosmology contributes ten HAM realizations that share the same FastPM density field and halo catalog. The effective number of independent samples for the cosmological-parameter unbiasedness test is therefore much smaller than 1,000, and the comparison with a standard normal distribution in Fig. 6 should account for this correlation. Please state the effective sample size, or compute a block-bootstrap estimate that resamples whole cosmologies, before claiming that the 1D distributions are consistent with a standard normal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The Gaussian likelihood expression is missing the minus sign and the factor of 1/2; it should read p(d|theta) proportional to exp[-(1/2)(d - f(theta))^T C^{-1}(d - f(theta))].
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The first sentence of the caption is duplicated verbatim.
  3. [Sec. 5.1 and Fig. 4] The stated units of Delta Sigma, "h^2 M_sun/pc^2/Mpc", look like a typo; excess surface density is more conventionally quoted in h M_sun/pc^2 or M_sun/pc^2, so please check the units.
  4. [References] Thiele et al. 2024a and 2024b are listed with identical journal, volume, and page (ApJ 969, 89); if these are intended to be distinct papers, the second entry needs a different bibliographic record.
  5. [Sec. 5.3 and Fig. 10] The description of the blue line as "a normal distribution whose mean equals the average of predictions" is incomplete; please specify whether the width is the mean predicted standard deviation or the standard deviation of the predictions themselves.
  6. [Sec. 4] The description of the 9:1 split is clear, but it would help to state explicitly that 900 cosmologies (with all ten HAM realizations each) are used for training and 100 cosmologies for validation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SBI validation is a held-out calibration test against known mock inputs, and the paper explicitly acknowledges its self-consistency limitation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a neural posterior estimator trained on forward-modeled void lensing data can recover the input cosmological parameters of held-out mocks. The validation truths are the parameters used to generate the validation mocks; these values are not used to fit the network or to construct the posterior, and the training and validation sets are explicitly separated at the cosmology level. The reported TARP coverage and the distributions of (prediction - truth)/uncertainty are standard calibration checks, not identities forced by construction. The main caveat, that training and validation share the same approximate FastPM forward model, is not a circular step: it is an acknowledged limitation stated in Sec. 6 ('All of the results in this work are made in a self-consistent way, i.e., the training set and the validation set are from the same forward modeling procedure'), and the paper identifies future tests against high-fidelity simulations. Self-citations to DIVE (Zhao et al. 2016) and FCFC (Zhao 2023) are software references for void finding and correlation-function measurement, and Su et al. (2023) is only cited as background on gravity tests; none of these carries the paper's load-bearing argument. Appendix A provides an independent stress test adding shape noise and honestly reports that the posterior degrades toward the prior, which further demonstrates that the main constraints are properties of the noise-free forward model rather than a hidden fitted-input result. No derivation step reduces to its own inputs by construction, so no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the FastPM-to-void-lensing forward model, which is validated only against itself. No parameters are fit to real data, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • HAM scatter sigma = sampled from U(0,5)
    Galaxy-halo connection scatter parameter; marginalized as nuisance. Predictions are biased for sigma>2.5 (Sec 5.2), so cosmological results rely on its weak degeneracy with Omega_m and S8.
  • Reference galaxy number density n_ref = 3.5e-4 (h/Mpc)^3
    Chosen to match BOSS LOWZ; sets the galaxy catalog for void finding and is held fixed.
  • Void radius selection = 15 to 25 Mpc/h, 10 bins, stacked
    The summary statistic is defined by this cut and binning; no sensitivity test is provided.
  • Scatter prescription S_g = 1+N(0,sigma^2) if positive else exp(N(0,sigma^2))
    Ad hoc lognormal-like model for scatter in HAM.
  • Shape noise parameters (Appendix) = n_eff=6 or 20 arcmin^-2, sigma_e=0.288
    Used in Appendix A; covariance from one ray-tracing run assumed cosmology-independent.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FastPM with B=2 and 40 steps reproduces the matter field accurately on void lensing scales.
    The entire training set uses FastPM; fidelity to N-body or real data is deferred to future work (Sec 6.3).
  • domain assumption Void lensing signal equals the projected density profile transform without ray tracing and source galaxy distribution.
    Sec 3.3 states 'we choose this approximate technique and leave a realistic modeling to future work.'
  • domain assumption Shape noise can be neglected in the headline validation; posterior uncertainties are only cosmic variance plus network uncertainty.
    Sec 6 and Appendix A: shape noise degrades constraints to near-priors when included.
  • domain assumption HAM monotonic abundance matching with scatter sigma adequately models the galaxy-halo connection for void identification.
    Sec 3.2; HAM is chosen for fewer parameters, but its adequacy for void statistics is assumed.
  • domain assumption Rockstar halo finding works on FastPM density fields.
    Sec 3.2, citing Thiele et al. 2024a; not independently verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological Constraints with Void Lensing I: the Simulation-Based Inference Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7RX7VYR

@misc{pith2026250415149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological Constraints with Void Lensing I: the Simulation-Based Inference Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7RX7VYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15149}
}
abstract

We present a Simulation-Based Inference (SBI) framework for cosmological parameter estimation via void lensing analysis. Despite the absence of an analytical model of void lensing, SBI can effectively learn posterior distributions through forward modeling of mock data. We develop a forward modeling pipeline that accounts for both cosmology and the galaxy-halo connection. By training a neural density estimator on simulated data, we infer the posteriors of two cosmological parameters, $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$. Validation tests are conducted on posteriors derived from different cosmological parameters and a fiducial sample. The results demonstrate that SBI provides unbiased estimates of mean values and accurate uncertainties. These findings highlight the potential to apply void lensing analysis to observational data even without an analytical void lensing model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15149 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow of a typical SBI, in which the density estimator is chosen as the Neural Posterior Estimator (NPE), i.e., directly estimating the posterior. The forward modeling process transforms parameters to be inferred to data vector, and therefore includes the process of measuring summary statistics from simulation results in our case. The density estimator takes parameter-data pair {θ, d} as input, and after the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The schematic diagram of forward modeling. The gray blocks represent modeling processes, the green blocks represent outputs in each step of modeling. The red block represents input parameters in the model. The gray blocks represent steps in forward modeling, and the green blocks show the corresponding output in each step. Final output i.e. void lensing signal is shown in blue block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Parameter space of parameters considered in this work, including cosmological parameters ΩM, S 8, and HAM parameter σ. These samples are randomly divided into two parts with 9 : 1, corresponding to the training set (orange dots) and validation set (blue dots), respectively. In order to test the performance of our method on a special cosmology, we choose a fiducial cosmology marked as red star. Note this sample is ne… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The void lensing signals in different cosmologies and different galaxy population processes. The x-axis represents the projection radius rescaled by the void radius. The y-axis is the Excess Surface Density (ESD) around voids. These are the data vectors used by SBI. Σc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The predicted mean values versus the truths of cosmological parameters ΩM and S 8, and HAM parameter σ, over 1,000 validation sets for each parameter. The blue sticks represent 1σ regions of predictions. overestimate the uncertainties of parameters. In brief, TARP com￾…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The blue line represents the Expected Coverage Probability (ECP) given the credibility level 1 − α. If the density estimator is accurate, i.e., the estimation of the uncertainties is neither underconfident nor overconfident, ECP should be equal to 1 − α, and the blue l…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The posterior prediction from SBI on data vector of fiducial cosmology. The thin gray lines mark the true value and 1 − σ and 2 − σ regions are presented as dark and light shadows. We also mark the correlation coefficients between each pair of parameters. Regarding the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of SBI predictions on fiducial cosmology. For each panel, the blue histogram shows the distribution of the differences between predictions and truths, rescaled by the predicted standard deviation. The orange line represents the standard normal distributi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Japan, 70, S8

    Aihara, H., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Japan, 70, S8

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2021, A&A, 645, A104

    Asgari, Marika, Lin, Chieh-An, Joachimi, Benjamin, et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A104

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Photometric Data Set for Cosmology

    Bechtol, K., Sevilla-Noarbe, I., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2025, Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Photometric Data Set for Cosmology

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Wu, H.-Y . 2012, ApJ, 762, 109

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    2023, A&A, 670, A47

    Bonici, M., Carbone, C., Davini, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A47

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Boschetti, R., Vielzeuf, P., Cousinou, M.-C., Escoffier, S., & Jullo, E. 2024, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2024, 067

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    2023, A&A, 669, A69

    Burger, Pierre A., Friedrich, Oliver, Harnois-Déraps, Joachim, et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A69

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 1036

    Cai, Y .-C., Padilla, N., & Li, B. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1036

    2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    C., Hamaus, N., & Desjacques, V

    Chan, K. C., Hamaus, N., & Desjacques, V . 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 103521

    2014

  2. [10]

    A., Grandón, D., et al

    Cheng, S., Marques, G. A., Grandón, D., et al. 2024, Cosmological constraints from weak lensing scattering transform using HSC Y1 data

    2024

  3. [11]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Dawson, K. S., Schlegel, D. J., Ahn, C. P., et al. 2012, AJ, 145, 10 DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016a, The DESI Experi- ment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design DESI Collaboration, Aghamousa, A., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016b, The DESI Experi- ...

    2012

  4. [12]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72

    2011

  5. [13]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 2273 Gil-Marín, H., Verde, L., Noreña, J., et al

    Feng, Y ., Chu, M.-Y ., Seljak, U., & McDonald, P. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2273 Gil-Marín, H., Verde, L., Noreña, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1914

    2016

  6. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 203

    Gong, Y ., Liu, X., Cao, Y ., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 203

    2019

  7. [15]

    2023b, J

    Hahn, C., Eickenberg, M., Ho, S., et al. 2023b, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2023, 010

    2023

  8. [16]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1457

    Hahn, C., Lemos, P., Parker, L., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1457

    2024

  9. [17]

    Halder, A., Gong, Z., Barreira, A., et al. 2023, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2023, 028 Harnois-Déraps, J., Martinet, N., Castro, T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1623

    2023

  10. [18]

    2021, A&A, 648, A74

    Heydenreich, Sven, Brück, Benjamin, & Harnois-Déraps, Joachim. 2021, A&A, 648, A74

    2021

  11. [19]

    2021, A&A, 646, A140

    Heymans, Catherine, Tröster, Tilman, Asgari, Marika, et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A140

    2021

  12. [20]

    J., Chartier, N., et al

    Ho, M., Bartlett, D. J., Chartier, N., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7

    2024

  13. [21]

    M., Hahn, C., et al

    Hou, J., Dizgah, A. M., Hahn, C., et al. 2024,SIMBIG: Cosmological Constraints from the Redshift-Space Galaxy Skew Spectra

    2024

  14. [22]

    M., Philcox, O

    Ivanov, M. M., Philcox, O. H. E., Cabass, G., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 083515

    2023

  15. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, stae2629

    Jeffrey, N., Whiteway, L., Gatti, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, stae2629

    2024

  16. [24]

    2024, Cosmological Analysis with Calibrated Neural Quantile Estimation and Approximate Simulators

    Jia, H. 2024, Cosmological Analysis with Calibrated Neural Quantile Estimation and Approximate Simulators

    2024

  17. [25]

    D., Pisani, A., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., et al

    Kreisch, C. D., Pisani, A., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 100

    2022

  18. [26]

    2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 67, 289512

    Lai, L., Ding, J., Luo, X., et al. 2024, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 67, 289512

    2024

  19. [27]

    2011, Euclid Definition Study Report

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

    2011

  20. [28]

    2023b, SimBIG: Field-level Simulation- Based Inference of Galaxy Clustering LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P

    Lemos, P., Parker, L., Hahn, C., et al. 2023b, SimBIG: Field-level Simulation- Based Inference of Galaxy Clustering LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, LSST Science

    2009

  21. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04228

    Massara, E., Hahn, C., Eickenberg, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.04228

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Massara, E., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., Viel, M., & Sutter, P. 2015, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2015, 018

    2015

  23. [31]

    P., Thiele, L., Armijo, J., et al

    Novaes, C. P., Thiele, L., Armijo, J., et al. 2024, Cosmology from HSC Y1 Weak Lensing with Combined Higher-Order Statistics and Simulation-based Inference

    2024

  24. [32]

    N., et al

    Pisani, A., Massara, E., Spergel, D. N., et al. 2019, Cosmic voids: a novel probe to shed light on our Universe

    2019

  25. [33]

    2022, Strong Lensing Parameter Estimation on Ground-Based Imaging Data Using Simulation-Based Inference Régaldo-Saint Blancard, B., Hahn, C., Ho, S., et al

    Poh, J., Samudre, A., ´Ciprijanovi´c, A., et al. 2022, Strong Lensing Parameter Estimation on Ground-Based Imaging Data Using Simulation-Based Inference Régaldo-Saint Blancard, B., Hahn, C., Ho, S., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 083535 Rodríguez-Torres, S. A., Chuang, C.-H.,...

    2022

  26. [34]

    2019, MNRAS, 491, 51

    Singh, S., Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Rodríguez-Torres, S., & Slosar, A. 2019, MNRAS, 491, 51

    2019

  27. [35]

    & Navarro, J

    Steinmetz, M. & Navarro, J. F. 1999, ApJ, 513, 555

    1999

  28. [36]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 64

    Su, C., Shan, H., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 64

    2023

  29. [37]

    V ., Wechsler, R

    Tasitsiomi, A., Kravtsov, A. V ., Wechsler, R. H., & Primack, J. R. 2004, ApJ, 614, 533

    2004

  30. [38]

    2024b, ApJ, 969, 89 von Wietersheim-Kramsta, M., Lin, K., Tessore, N., et al

    Thiele, L., Massara, E., Pisani, A., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 969, 89 von Wietersheim-Kramsta, M., Lin, K., Tessore, N., et al. 2024, KiDS-SBI: Simulation-Based Inference Analysis of KiDS-1000 Cosmic Shear

    2024

  31. [39]

    2024, The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing and SDSS BOSS cross-correlation measurement and constraints on gravity with the EG statistic

    Wenzl, L., An, R., Battaglia, N., et al. 2024, The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Gravitational Lensing and SDSS BOSS cross-correlation measurement and constraints on gravity with the EG statistic

    2024

  32. [40]

    A., Courteau, S., Faber, S

    Willick, J. A., Courteau, S., Faber, S. M., et al. 1997, ApJS, 109, 333

    1997

  33. [41]

    & Bean, R

    Wilson, C. & Bean, R. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 023512

    2021

  34. [42]

    H., Stölzner, B., Asgari, M., et al

    Wright, A. H., Stölzner, B., Asgari, M., et al. 2025, KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey

    2025

  35. [43]

    2023, A&A, 673, A111

    Yao, Ji, Shan, Huanyuan, Zhang, Pengjie, et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A111

    2023

  36. [44]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 57

    Yu, J., Zhao, C., Chuang, C.-H., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 57

    2022

  37. [45]

    2023, MNRAS, 527, 6950

    Yu, J., Zhao, C., Gonzalez-Perez, V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 527, 6950

    2023

  38. [46]

    2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290

    Zhan, H. 2021, Chinese Science Bulletin, 66, 1290

    2021

  39. [47]

    2024, MUltiplexed Survey Telescope: Perspec- tives for Large-Scale Structure Cosmology in the Era of Stage-V Spectroscopic Survey

    Zhao, C., Huang, S., He, M., et al. 2024, MUltiplexed Survey Telescope: Perspec- tives for Large-Scale Structure Cosmology in the Era of Stage-V Spectroscopic Survey

    2024

  40. [48]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 2670

    Zhao, C., Tao, C., Liang, Y ., Kitaura, F.-S., & Chuang, C.-H. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2670

    2016

  41. [49]

    Zhao, X., Mao, Y ., & Wandelt, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 933, 236 Article number, page 10 of 11 Chen Su et al.: Cosmological Constraints with V oid Lensing Fig. A.1. Constraining results after considering two kinds of shape noise, one matches Stage-III survey (shown in green filled con...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.