Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

HI bias parameters are not independent: a learned mapping from halo-occupation physics yields tight, non-Gaussian priors for 21 cm cosmology.

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

2026-08-02 02:46 UTC pith:L7UK6OIX

load-bearing objection A credible proof-of-concept for HI simulation-based EFT priors; the central claim of a structured HOD-to-bias mapping is robust, but the bias-extraction step needs more validation before the tight priors are taken at face value. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14206 v1 pith:L7UK6OIX submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.CO

Simulation-Based Priors for HI Bias from Halo Occupation Physics

Debanjan Sarkar , Simon Foreman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords 21 cm intensity mappingHI bias parameterseffective field theory of large-scale structurehalo occupation distributionnormalizing flowssimulation-based priorsfull-shape analysisnonlinear scales
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.

The paper tries to establish that the small-scale physics of how neutral hydrogen occupies dark-matter halos controls, in a structured and learnable way, the large-scale bias parameters that enter full-shape analyses of 21 cm intensity maps. Concretely, it claims that the mapping from four halo-occupation parameters to the EFT bias parameters (b1, b2, b3, bG2) is curved, correlated, and non-Gaussian, not a set of independent distributions. By training a conditional normalizing flow on this mapping, the authors turn nonlinear-scale 21 cm power-spectrum forecasts into informative priors on the bias parameters, substantially tighter than flat priors across z=1–3, with the largest gain at z=3. They also show the mapping depends on which simulation supplies the halos, so future priors must account for that dependence. A careful reader would care because broad uninformative priors are currently a major source of conservatism in 21 cm cosmology; informative priors would translate directly into sharper cosmological constraints.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the HOD-to-bias relation for neutral hydrogen is not a loose cloud but a thin, curved manifold: across an ensemble of 2,000 HOD realizations per redshift, the four EFT bias parameters occupy a correlated, non-Gaussian region of parameter space, and the high-mass slope α acts as the main organizing direction. When a conditional normalizing flow is trained on paired HOD/bias samples, it reproduces this structure and can be sampled to yield simulation-based priors. Propagating a CHORD-like 21 cm power-spectrum measurement on nonlinear scales through the flow gives priors on (b1,b2,bG2,b3) that are dramatically tighter than flat priors, mos

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional density p(θ_EFT | θ_HOD), the distribution of the EFT bias parameters given the four parameters (M0, Mmin, α, β) of a simplified HI halo-occupation model. The paper estimates it with a conditional normalizing flow—an invertible neural map from a Gaussian base to the target density, conditioned on the HOD parameters—trained by maximum likelihood on paired samples generated from simulations. This flow does the work of encoding the curved, correlated, non-Gaussian support of the bias manifold and providing a sampleable prior; without it the structure visible in the HOD scan could not be turned into a usable prior.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted k→0 limits of the transfer functions—obtained by extrapolating smooth polynomial fits over a quasi-linear k range—give unbiased values of (b1,b2,bG2,b3); if the true k-dependence is not captured by those forms, every bias estimate and the prior built from them is systematically wrong.

What would settle it

Take a single set of HOD realizations and infer the bias parameters with a finer mesh and a more complete operator basis (e.g., including all independent third-order operators); if the extracted (b1,b2,bG2,b3) move by more than the width of the flow prior, the prior is not robust. Alternatively, increase the simulation volume and check whether the offsets between the two simulation suites shrink; if they persist, the simulation dependence is a genuine property, not finite-volume noise.

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

If this is right

  • Replacing broad, independent flat priors on HI bias parameters with the flow-based prior significantly tightens EFT-parameter posteriors in full-shape 21 cm analyses; at z=3 the covariance volume shrinks by roughly two orders of magnitude as observing time grows from 100 to 1000 days.
  • The learned conditional density can be used in two ways: directly as a simulation-based prior, or as a map that converts external or nonlinear-scale constraints on HOD parameters into an induced prior on EFT bias parameters.
  • The mapping is organized mainly by the high-mass slope α; M0 has almost no effect on the deterministic overdensity field, while Mmin and β mainly broaden the manifold rather than move it.
  • Because the mapping differs between the two simulation suites, quantitative HI bias priors must treat simulation choice as a systematic; the difference is largest in the tidal and high-bias sectors.
  • Simple mass-weighted analytic halo-bias formulae capture only the broad ordering, not the detailed bias relations, especially for the effective cubic response b3.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the pipeline to redshift space, with Finger-of-God damping and foreground wedges, would likely change the induced priors; the current real-space forecasts are explicitly optimistic.
  • The same flow architecture could learn p(θ_EFT | θ_HOD, θ_cosmo), letting cosmology and HI astrophysics vary jointly; this would produce priors directly usable in cosmological parameter estimation rather than fixed-cosmology proof-of-concept.
  • A multi-simulation training set with controlled variations in volume, resolution, gravity solver, and baryonic physics could turn the observed offsets between the two simulation suites into a quantitative uncertainty model, for example by adding simulation-level hyperparameters to the conditional density.
  • Because bispectrum and higher-order analyses involve a larger bias-parameter space, they stand to gain even more from informative simulation-based priors; the present b1–b3 focus is the first step.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for constructing simulation-based priors on EFT bias parameters for 21 cm intensity mapping. It paints a four-parameter HOD model onto Hidden Valley N-body halo catalogs, measures (b1, b2, bG2, b3) via field-level shifted-operator transfer functions extrapolated to k→0, trains a conditional normalizing flow p(θ_EFT | θ_HOD), and then uses a CHORD-like Fisher forecast to produce induced EFT priors. The same procedure is repeated with IllustrisTNG300 to assess simulation dependence. The central claim is that the HOD-to-bias mapping is highly structured—curved, correlated, non-Gaussian—and that flow-based priors derived from nonlinear-scale 21 cm measurements are substantially tighter than conventional flat priors, especially at z=3.

Significance. If the structured mapping is physical, the paper provides a timely and useful step toward informative EFT priors for current and future HI surveys. The authors make good use of existing field-level tools, include useful validation checks (mesh-resolution convergence, TNG300-Dark comparison, analytic baseline comparison), and are unusually careful in stating limitations. However, the quantitative claims rest on bias parameters extracted by an extrapolation procedure that is not validated against any independent bias estimator, and the b3 used in the forecasts is an effective coefficient in a truncated basis rather than a unique physical EFT parameter. Both points are load-bearing for the paper's headline conclusions and need to be addressed before the priors can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (12)–(14), Fig. 2] The bias parameters used as training labels are defined by polynomial fits extrapolated to k→0, but no error bars, fit range, or fit residuals are reported. The text itself notes that β1, βG2, and βδ3 do not always show flat low-k plateaus; the fitting forms, especially the linear term c1,1 k in Eq. (12), could absorb HOD-dependent scale dependence. Because the same extraction pipeline is used for both Hidden Valley and TNG300, common systematics would produce similar qualitative 'structure' regardless of the true physics. The mesh-resolution and TNG300-Dark tests do not break this degeneracy. I request (i) explicit kmin/kmax and residual diagnostics, (ii) a sensitivity test of the inferred bias parameters to the fitting form (e.g., dropping the linear term, adding odd terms, varying the fit range), and (iii) validation against an independent estimator (e.g., separate-universe responses
  2. [Sec. II.B, Sec. VII, Fig. 9] The parameter b3 is explicitly defined as the large-scale coefficient of the local cubic operator within a truncated basis, and the paper states that it can absorb contributions from omitted third-order operators. Nevertheless, b3 is then used as an EFT bias parameter in the flow prior and in the CHORD-like Fisher forecast. A full-shape EFT likelihood that uses a complete operator basis would require the physical b3, not this effective coefficient. Please demonstrate that the learned prior on b3 is stable under extension of the operator basis (e.g., by adding the omitted third-order operators for a subset of realizations), or explicitly restrict the use case to the same truncated basis as the bias measurement. The analytic comparison in Fig. 9 already shows a qualitative failure for b3, so this is not a purely hypothetical concern.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. VI, Figs. 21–24] The abstract claims that the induced priors are 'substantially tighter than conventional flat priors' across z=1–3, but Sec. VI does not contain any quantitative comparison to flat priors. The covariance-volume and error ratios in Fig. 24 are normalized to the 100-day case at the same redshift, not to a flat prior, and the flat-prior parameter ranges are never specified. This is the paper's headline quantitative claim. Please add a direct comparison (e.g., ratio of flow-prior volume to flat-prior volume over the same parameter ranges, or marginalized flat-to-flow width ratios) or revise the claim to something like 'visibly tighter in the examples shown.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The sampling range is written as log10(Mmin/h−1M⊙) ∈ [5×10^10, 12], which mixes linear and logarithmic quantities. It should be [log10(5×10^10), 12] or equivalently [10.7, 12].
  2. [Sec. V.C and Fig. 16 caption] The text states that TNG300 generally gives 'more negative' values of bG2 than HV, while the Fig. 16 caption says TNG300 is 'less negative' than HV. From Figs. 15 and 25, the latter appears to be correct (TNG300 bG2 is higher/less negative). Please resolve this internal contradiction.
  3. [Eq. (29)] The fiducial HOD point is written as (M0, Mmin, α, β) = (3×10^10, 2×10^11, 0.8, 0.6) without units for M0 and Mmin. Please specify h−1M⊙.
  4. [References] Reference [43] (and a few other arXiv entries) is missing the publication year; please complete the bibliographic details for consistency.
  5. [Figs. 8, 26, 27] The cubic polynomial coefficients in the bias–bias fits are quoted without uncertainties or a stated fit range. If these are intended as a practical reference, add a caveat about the limited HOD coverage and the lack of error bars.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the pipeline is empirical, the CHORD forecast is an explicitly labeled mock, and the only mild issue is self-referential use of the same simulations for training and forecast signal.

full rationale

The central claim—that p(θ_EFT|θ_HOD) is highly structured—is an empirical result obtained by applying a fixed field-level pipeline to HI fields generated from the HOD model in Eq. (1); the bias parameters are then learned from transfer-function fits (Eqs. 11–14), and the normalizing flow is trained on those paired samples. No equation in the paper defines the HOD-to-bias mapping in terms of the quantity it later constrains. The CHORD-like Fisher forecast in Sec. VI is a proof-of-concept mock: P_HI(k) is explicitly 'measured from the Hidden Valley realizations,' and the same Hidden Valley suite also provides the training pairs for the flow. This makes the demonstration self-referential in the sense that the mock data and the learned mapping share a common simulation origin, and therefore the forecast cannot independently validate the accuracy of the prior. However, this is not circular by construction: the EFT bias parameters are not inputs to the P21 calculation, and the conditional flow is a learned density rather than an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper repeatedly and explicitly labels the exercise as a controlled demonstration and lists the simplifying assumptions (fixed Ω_HI, real space, diagonal covariance, Fisher posterior) that prevent it from being survey-ready. The self-citation to Ref. [37] (Foreman et al.) supplies the bias-extraction methodology, but this is a published and internally validated tool rather than a load-bearing uniqueness/ansatz claim; the pipeline is additionally checked via residual maps, mesh-resolution convergence (Appendix C), and the TNG/TNG300-Dark comparison. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction, so the circularity score is minimal (1).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the HI-HOD model as a proxy for HI physics, on the shifted-operator bias expansion, and on simulation fidelity. The forecast also depends on a chosen fiducial HOD and ad hoc regularizing priors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Regularizing Gaussian prior widths on M0 and Mmin = σ(M0)=0.3×training range, σ(Mmin)=0.1×training range
    Chosen ad hoc to make the Fisher matrix invertible; directly shapes the HOD posterior and hence the induced EFT prior in Sec. VI.
  • Fiducial HOD point θ* = (M0, Mmin, α, β) = (3×10^10, 2×10^11, 0.8, 0.6)
    Chosen by hand as the center of the forecast; the forecast prior location depends on it.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Eq. (1) HI-HOD model: M_HI(M)=M0(M/Mmin)^α exp[-(Mmin/M)^β], with point-mass deposition and no scatter.
    Acknowledged simplification; if real HI occupation has assembly bias, scatter, or spatial structure, the learned mapping may be overconfident or biased.
  • domain assumption Shifted-operator bias expansion truncated at cubic order; b3 is an effective cubic response.
    Limits interpretation of b3; the paper itself notes b3 can absorb omitted third-order operators, so the analytic comparison in Fig. 9 is not a direct test of halo b3.
  • domain assumption Hidden Valley (FastPM) and IllustrisTNG300 halo catalogs are representative for matched HOD realizations.
    The HV-TNG offsets shown in Sec. V demonstrate this is not fully true; future priors require multi-simulation treatment.
  • domain assumption CHORD Fisher forecast assumptions: real-space P21, diagonal covariance, fixed Ω_HI(z), no sample variance, moderate foreground wedge.
    The paper states these assumptions make the forecast optimistic and not survey-ready.
  • ad hoc to paper Ad hoc Gaussian priors on M0 and Mmin are imposed to regularize the Fisher matrix.
    These priors are not derived from independent observations; they affect the induced EFT prior and are only loosely motivated.
  • standard math Normalizing flow change-of-variables formula and Fisher information formalism.
    Background statistical mathematics assumed to be correct.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33862 in / 11972 out tokens · 121376 ms · 2026-08-02T02:46:33.282571+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Full-shape analyses of 21 cm intensity maps with the effective field theory of large-scale structure will require priors on HI bias parameters, and the standard choice of broad uninformative priors can lead to cosmological constraints that are unnecessarily conservative. We present a simulation-based framework that replaces these broad priors with informative priors based on learning the conditional distribution $p(\bm{\theta}_{\rm EFT}\mid\bm{\theta}_{\rm HOD})$ between effective-field-theory-based bias parameters and the parameters of a model for HI clustering in the nonlinear regime. Specifically, we train a conditional normalizing flow on field-level measurements of the lowest-order local bias parameters $(b_1,b_2,b_3)$ and the tidal bias $b_{\mathcal{G}_2}$ by applying a simple HI halo occupation distribution (HOD) to the Hidden Valley simulations. We find that the resulting HOD-to-bias mapping is highly structured, displaying a strong dependence on the power of halo mass in the HOD model. Propagating CHORD-like telescope sensitivity forecasts for the 21 cm power spectrum on nonlinear scales through this mapping produces non-Gaussian, correlated priors on the bias parameters that are substantially tighter than conventional flat priors across $z=1$--$3$, with the improvement most dramatic at high redshift. By repeating our analysis using halo catalogs from the IllustrisTNG simulations, we find non-negligible differences from the Hidden Valley results, indicating that future applications of simulation-based HI priors will need to carefully account for the dependence of these priors on the simulations used to construct them. Our framework provides an initial step toward informative EFT priors for current and forthcoming HI intensity mapping surveys, including CHIME, CHORD, and MeerKLASS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14206 by Debanjan Sarkar, Simon Foreman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Hidden Valley field-level reconstruction of the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Hidden Valley transfer-function measurements at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Hidden Valley: joint distributions between H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Hidden Valley: pairwise relations among inferred [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Hidden Valley: same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Hidden Valley: empirical bias–bias relations at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Hidden Valley: simulation-inferred versus analytic bias parameters at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Training and validation negative log-likelihood, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Hidden Valley: one-at-a-time conditional slices through the trained normalizing flow at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. IllustrisTNG300: joint dependence of inferred bias parameters on H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. IllustrisTNG300: bias relations as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. IllustrisTNG300: simulation-inferred versus analytic bias parameters at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. IllustrisTNG300: one-at-a-time conditional slices through the trained normalizing flow, compared directly to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Hidden Valley vs. IllustrisTNG300: comparison of inferred bias parameters at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Real-space 21 cm signal power spectrum and CHORD noise levels used in the Fisher forecast at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Simulation-based EFT priors induced by CHORD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Relative tightening of the induced EFT priors with CHORD observing time at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. IllustrisTNG300 analogue of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Hidden Valley [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. IllustrisTNG300: same layout as Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Mesh-resolution convergence of inferred bias parameters at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29. Comparison of inferred EFT bias parameters at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_29.png] view at source ↗

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

76 extracted references · 63 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    U.-L. Pen, L. Staveley-Smith, J. Peterson, and T.-C. Chang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.394, 6 (2009), arXiv:0802.3239 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Chang, U.-L

    T.-C. Chang, U.-L. Pen, K. Bandura, and J. B. Peterson, Nature466, 463 (2010), arXiv:1007.3709 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    K. W. Masuiet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.763, L20 (2013), arXiv:1208.0331 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    C. J. Andersonet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 3382 (2018), arXiv:1710.00424 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    L. Li, L. Staveley-Smith, and J. Rhee, Res. Astron. As- trophys.21, 030 (2021), arXiv:2008.04081 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Tramonte and Y.-Z

    D. Tramonte and Y.-Z. Ma, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 5916 (2020), arXiv:2009.02387 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Wolzet al., Mon

    L. Wolzet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 3495 (2022), arXiv:2102.04946 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    J.947, 16 (2023), arXiv:2202.01242 [astro-ph.CO]

    CHIME Collaboration, Astrophys. J.947, 16 (2023), arXiv:2202.01242 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Cunningtonet al., Mon

    S. Cunningtonet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518, 6262 (2022), arXiv:2206.01579 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    I. P. Carucciet al., Astron. Astrophys.703, A222 (2025), arXiv:2412.06750 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Chenet al., Astrophys

    Z. Chenet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.279, 19 (2025), arXiv:2504.03908 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    CHIME Collaboration, Astrophys. J.963, 23 (2024), 28 3.0 4.5 6.0 Ngrid = 256 3.0 4.5 6.0 Ngrid = 512 b1 0 5 10 15 Ngrid = 256 0 5 10 15 b2 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 Ngrid = 256 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 bG2 0 8 16 24 Ngrid = 256 0 8 16 24 b3 0.5 1.0 1.5 α FIG. 28. Mesh-resolution convergence of inferred bias parameters atz= 3. Each panel compares one bias parameter measured with...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    CHIME Collaboration, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2601.03240 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    S. Paul, M. G. Santos, Z. Chen, and L. Wolz, arXiv e- prints (2023), arXiv:2301.11943 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Townsend, M

    J. Townsend, M. G. Santos, S. Chatterjee, Z. Chen, S. Paul, A. Mazumder, L. Wolz, M. J. Jarvis, and B. S. Frank, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2602.23055 [astro- ph.GA]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    CHIME Collaboration, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2511.19620 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    CHIME Collaboration, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2603.25680 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Liu and J

    A. Liu and J. R. Shaw, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.132, 062001 (2020), arXiv:1907.08211 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    E. D. Kovetzet al., arXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1709.09066 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Chang and A

    T.-C. Chang and A. Lidz, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2602.03011 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Sarkar, S

    D. Sarkar, S. Bharadwaj, and S. Anathpindika, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.460, 4310 (2016), arXiv:1605.02963 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Sarkar, S

    D. Sarkar, S. Majumdar, and S. Bharadwaj, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.490, 2880 (2019), arXiv:1907.01819 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Atz= 1, the volume and marginalized-error ratios stay close to one, consistent with the nearly overlapping contours in Fig. 21. This indicates that, within the as- sumptions of this forecast, the induced EFT prior is al- ready largely saturated after 100 days. Atz= 2, the 500- and 1000-day cases show a more visible reduction in both the covariance volume ...

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldar- riaga, JCAP07, 051, arXiv:1004.2488 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt, Phys. Rept. 733, 1 (2018), arXiv:1611.09787 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    M. M. Ivanov, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, S. Mishra-Sharma, A. Obuljen, and M. W. Toomey, Phys. Rev. D110, 063538 (2024), arXiv:2402.13310 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    M. M. Ivanov, A. Obuljen, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, and M. W. Toomey, Phys. Rev. D111, 063548 (2025), arXiv:2409.10609 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Zhanget al.(DESI), JCAP11, 049, arXiv:2504.10407 [astro-ph.CO]

    H. Zhanget al.(DESI), JCAP11, 049, arXiv:2504.10407 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Chen and M

    S.-F. Chen and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D112, 083562 (2025), arXiv:2507.00118 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2602.18554 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Bonici, G. D’Amico, S. Paradiso, and W. J. Percival, JCAP04, 041, arXiv:2409.12937 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Akitsu, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2410.08998 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Akitsu, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2410.08998 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    M. M. Ivanovet al., arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2412.01888 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Shiferaw, N

    M. Shiferaw, N. Kokron, and R. H. Wechsler, Astrophys. J.989, 218 (2025), arXiv:2412.06886 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    M. M. Ivanov, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.07270 29 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Zennaro, R

    M. Zennaro, R. E. Angulo, S. Contreras, M. Pellejero- Ib´ a˜ nez, and F. Maion, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 5443 (2022), arXiv:2110.05408 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Obuljen, M

    A. Obuljen, M. Simonovi´ c, A. Schneider, and R. Feldmann, Phys. Rev. D108, 083528 (2023), arXiv:2207.12398 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Foreman, A

    S. Foreman, A. Obuljen, and M. Simonovi´ c, Phys. Rev. D110, 063555 (2024), arXiv:2405.18559 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Nelson, A

    D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, R. Wein- berger, L. Hernquist, R. Pakmor, S. Genel, P. Tor- rey, M. Vogelsberger, G. Kauffmann, F. Marinacci, and J. Naiman, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 624 (2018), arXiv:1707.03395 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Marinacci, M

    F. Marinacci, M. Vogelsberger, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, V. Springel, L. Hernquist, D. Nelson, R. Weinberger, A. Pillepich, J. Naiman, and S. Genel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.480, 5113 (2018), arXiv:1707.03396 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Springel, R

    V. Springel, R. Pakmor, A. Pillepich, R. Weinberger, D. Nelson, L. Hernquist, M. Vogelsberger, S. Genel, P. Torrey, F. Marinacci, and J. Naiman, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 676 (2018), arXiv:1707.03397 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Pillepich, D

    A. Pillepich, D. Nelson, L. Hernquist, V. Springel, R. Pakmor, P. Torrey, R. Weinberger, S. Genel, J. P. Naiman, F. Marinacci, and M. Vogelsberger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475, 648 (2018), arXiv:1707.03406 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    J. P. Naiman, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, E. Ramirez- Ruiz, P. Torrey, M. Vogelsberger, R. Pakmor, D. Nel- son, F. Marinacci, L. Hernquist, R. Weinberger, and S. Genel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.477, 1206 (2018), arXiv:1707.03401 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    C. Modi, E. Castorina, Y. Feng, and M. White, JCAP 09, 024, arXiv:1904.11923 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  45. [45]

    Vanderlindeet al., arXiv e-prints 10.5281/zen- odo.3765414 (2019), arXiv:1911.01777 [astro-ph.IM]

    K. Vanderlindeet al., arXiv e-prints 10.5281/zen- odo.3765414 (2019), arXiv:1911.01777 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Schmittfull, M

    M. Schmittfull, M. Simonovi´ c, V. Assassi, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D100, 043514 (2019), arXiv:1811.10640 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Schmittfull, M

    M. Schmittfull, M. Simonovi´ c, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP05, 059, arXiv:2012.03334 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    Feng, M.-Y

    Y. Feng, M.-Y. Chu, U. Seljak, and P. McDon- ald, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.463, 2273 (2016), arXiv:1603.00476 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, Astrophys. J. 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  50. [50]

    CHIME Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Supp.261, 29 (2022), arXiv:2201.07869 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    D. J. Baconet al.(SKA), Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e007 (2020), arXiv:1811.02743 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Villaescusa-Navarroet al., Astrophys

    F. Villaescusa-Navarroet al., Astrophys. J.866, 135 (2018), arXiv:1804.09180 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    Obuljen, D

    A. Obuljen, D. Alonso, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, I. Yoon, and M. Jones, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 5124 (2019), arXiv:1805.00934 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    M. D. McKay, R. J. Beckman, and W. J. Conover, Tech- nometrics21, 239 (1979)

    1979

  56. [56]

    C. M. Baugh, A. J. Benson, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk, and C. G. Lacey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.305, 21 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  57. [57]

    A. J. Benson, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk, C. M. Baugh, and C. G. Lacey, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.311, 793 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9903343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  58. [58]

    N. E. Chisariet al.(LSST Dark Energy Science), Astro- phys. J. Suppl.242, 2 (2019), arXiv:1812.05995 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    J. L. Tinker, B. E. Robertson, A. V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, M. S. Warren, G. Yepes, and S. Gottlober, Astrophys. J. 724, 878 (2010), arXiv:1001.3162 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [60]

    Lazeyras, C

    T. Lazeyras, C. Wagner, T. Baldauf, and F. Schmidt, JCAP02, 018, arXiv:1511.01096 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Kobyzev, S

    I. Kobyzev, S. Prince, and M. A. Brubaker, ArXiv abs/1908.09257(2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  62. [62]

    Papamakarios, E

    G. Papamakarios, E. T. Nalisnick, D. J. Rezende, S. Mo- hamed, and B. Lakshminarayanan, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22, 57:1 (2019)

    2019

  63. [63]

    D. J. Rezende and S. Mohamed, ArXivabs/1505.05770 (2015)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  64. [64]

    Kong and K

    Z. Kong and K. Chaudhuri, ArXivabs/2006.00392 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  65. [65]

    Durkan, A

    C. Durkan, A. Bekasov, I. Murray, and G. Papamakarios, nflows: normalizing flows in PyTorch (2020)

    2020

  66. [66]

    Schaller, C

    M. Schaller, C. S. Frenk, R. G. Bower, T. Theuns, A. Jenkins, J. Schaye, R. A. Crain, M. Furlong, C. D. Vecchia, and I. G. McCarthy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.451, 1247 (2015), arXiv:1409.8617 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    B. O. Mummery, I. G. McCarthy, S. Bird, and J. Schaye, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 227 (2017), arXiv:1702.02064 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    N. H. M. Crightonet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 452, 217 (2015), arXiv:1506.02037 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    J. C. Poberet al., Astrophys. J.782, 66 (2014), arXiv:1310.7031 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Sarkar and S

    D. Sarkar and S. Bharadwaj, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 96 (2018), arXiv:1801.07868 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Sarkar and S

    D. Sarkar and S. Bharadwaj, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 5666 (2019), arXiv:1906.07032 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    J. C. Jackson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.156, 1P (1972), arXiv:0810.3908 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1972

  73. [73]

    Mazumdar, S

    A. Mazumdar, S. Bharadwaj, and D. Sarkar, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 3975 (2020), arXiv:2005.07066 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    Pal and D

    S. Pal and D. Sarkar, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2601.18862 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Karagiannis, A

    D. Karagiannis, A. Slosar, and M. Liguori, JCAP11, 052, arXiv:1911.03964 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1911

  76. [76]

    Bharadwaj, A

    S. Bharadwaj, A. Mazumdar, and D. Sarkar, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 594 (2020), arXiv:2001.10243 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020