Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Simulation-Based Priors for HI Bias from Halo Occupation Physics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

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

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

Debanjan Sarkar , Simon Foreman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords 21cmintensitymappingHIbiasparameterseffectivefieldtheoryoflarge-scalestructurehalooccupationdistributionnormalizingflowssimulation-basedpriorsfull-shapeanalysisnonlinearscales
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

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.

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.

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

Extended reading notes

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

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
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 / 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 · score 1.0 of 10

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).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 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.
assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation-Based Priors for HI Bias from Halo Occupation Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7UK6OIX

@misc{pith2026260714206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation-Based Priors for HI Bias from Halo Occupation Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7UK6OIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14206}
}
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 the authors.

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. FIG. 2. Hidden Valley transfer-function measurements at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Hidden Valley: joint distributions between H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Hidden Valley: pairwise relations among inferred [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Hidden Valley: same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Hidden Valley: empirical bias–bias relations at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
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]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Training and validation negative log-likelihood, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
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]
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]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. IllustrisTNG300: bias relations as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
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]
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]
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]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
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]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Simulation-based EFT priors induced by CHORD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_23.png]
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]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. IllustrisTNG300 analogue of Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Hidden Valley [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. IllustrisTNG300: same layout as Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_27.png]
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]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29. Comparison of inferred EFT bias parameters at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_29.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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]

    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]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

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

    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]

    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]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Wolzet al., Mon

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

    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]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Cunningtonet al., Mon

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

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

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

    2025

  3. [11]

    Chenet al., Astrophys

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

    2025 arXiv

  4. [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 infer...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

    2026

  6. [14]

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

    2023 arXiv

  7. [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]

    2026

  8. [16]

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

    2025

  9. [17]

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

    2026

  10. [18]

    Liu and J

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

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

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

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chang and A

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

    2026

  13. [21]

    Sarkar, S

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

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sarkar, S

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

    2019

  15. [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-...

  16. [24]

    Baumann, A

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

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Desjacques, D

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

    2018 arXiv

  18. [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]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

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

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

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

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

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chen and M

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

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chudaykin, M

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

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhang, M

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

    arXiv

  24. [32]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

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

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Shiferaw, N

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

    2025

  27. [35]

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

    2025 arXiv

  28. [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]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Obuljen, M

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

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Foreman, A

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

    2024 arXiv

  31. [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]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [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]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [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]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [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]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [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]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

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

    1904 arXiv

  37. [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]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Schmittfull, M

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

    2019 arXiv

  39. [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]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [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]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Lewis, A

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

    2000 arXiv

  42. [50]

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

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

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

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

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

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Villaescusa-Navarroet al., Astrophys

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

    2018 arXiv

  46. [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]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

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

    1979

  48. [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

    1999 arXiv

  49. [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

    2000 arXiv

  50. [58]

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

    2019 arXiv

  51. [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]

    2010 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Lazeyras, C

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

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kobyzev, S

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

    1908 arXiv

  54. [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

  55. [63]

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

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kong and K

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

    2006 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Durkan, A

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

    2020

  58. [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]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [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]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

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

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

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

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Sarkar and S

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

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Sarkar and S

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

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

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

    1972 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Mazumdar, S

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

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Pal and D

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

    2026

  67. [75]

    Karagiannis, A

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

    1911 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bharadwaj, A

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

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.