Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Super sample covariance and the volume scaling of galaxy survey covariance matrices

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Covariance matrices for large galaxy surveys can be estimated from simulations 512 times smaller, with only 3% error, by correctly handling super-sample covariance and correcting for discrete-mode bin centering.

desk verdict Useful SSC method comparison, but the headline 512x volume-scaling claim is partly calibrated to the benchmark through Eq. 4.5, so treat it as a proof of concept until an external P^L is used. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16948 v2 pith:LOOGHWKN submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.CO

Greg Schreiner , Alex Krolewski , Shahab Joudaki , Will J. Percival This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords super-samplecovariancematrixvolumescalingseparateuniversesimulationspowerspectrummockcatalogueslarge-scalestructureDESI
topics Dark Matter
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

The paper argues that the covariance matrix of the dark matter power spectrum, the statistic that sets error bars for galaxy surveys, can be estimated from ensembles of simulations much smaller than the survey volume, provided two effects are handled: super-sample covariance, the scatter induced by density fluctuations larger than the simulation box, and the bin-centering bias from the discrete set of Fourier modes a smaller box contains. It compares two ways of building the super-sample effect into mock ensembles, either by perturbing cosmological parameters in separate-universe simulations or by adding a response term to the covariance, and finds they agree. It then shows that, after rescaling a small-box covariance to a large-box volume and applying a new correction that re-centers the effective wavenumber of each bin, the scaled covariance matches the full-size simulation covariance to within 3% on scales of interest for current surveys, even at a volume ratio of 512. The payoff is large: covariance matrices are often the dominant computational cost of a survey analysis, so this would let them be produced from much cheaper simulations.

What carries the argument

The machinery is built on the separate-universe response: a long-wavelength density fluctuation $\delta_b$ is reinterpreted as a change in the simulation's cosmological parameters, so the power-spectrum derivative $dP/d\delta_b$ can be measured from pairs of simulations with perturbed background density. Super-sample covariance is then either generated inside an ensemble by drawing $\delta_b$ for each mock from a Gaussian, or added analytically as $\sigma_b^2 (dP/d\delta_b)^2$ at the survey volume. The second piece is the bin-centering correction of Eq. (4.5), which rescales the small-box power spectrum by the ratio of $k$-space shell volumes $V_{k,S}/V_{k,L}$ and the ratio of the large- and small-box ensemble-average power spectra, correcting the fact that a discrete grid of modes measures $P(k)$ at a slightly different effective wavenumber in each box. Together these corrections make the covariance a function of volume that can be rescaled between box sizes.

What would settle it

Run the volume-scaling pipeline but supply the large-box power spectrum for Eq. (4.5) from an external analytic or emulated prediction instead of from the large-box ensemble itself; if the volume-scaled covariance then drifts beyond the claimed 3% agreement, the central claim fails as a prediction rather than a calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that volume scaling of covariance matrices works when super-sample covariance is added back at the survey volume and when the discrete-mode bin-centering effect is corrected. For five ensembles of L-PICOLA dark-matter simulations with volumes spanning a factor of 4096, the volume-scaled small-box covariance matches the large-box covariance to better than 3% on essentially all scales for volume ratios up to 512, with the exception of the smallest boxes whose low-k bins contain so few modes that the power spectrum distribution becomes non-Gaussian. The paper identifies the unresolved limitation: modes with wavelengths between the small and large box sizes couple to the measured modes, and their contribution cannot be reintroduced by the current method, which is why sub-percent agreement is out of reach. It also reports that the Sirko and spherical-collapse separate-universe parameterizations give nearly identical super-sample covariance, and that the additive method, which computes a power-spectrum response and adds the super-sample term separately, is the preferred route for volume scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The 3% volume-scaling match assumes the ensemble-average power spectrum of the large box is known in advance, because the bin-centering correction feeds it in; without an independent source for that quantity, the method calibrates to the very simulation it is meant to replace.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys can estimate covariance matrices from ensembles of boxes hundreds of times smaller than the survey volume, cutting the dominant computational cost of mock-based error estimation.
  • The addition method for super-sample covariance should be preferred over the ensemble method when volume scaling is planned, since the response term is volume independent and can be rescaled to the survey volume.
  • Sub-percent covariance accuracy cannot be achieved by pure volume scaling, because modes with wavelengths between the two box sizes contribute to the covariance and are not included.
  • Very small boxes must be avoided for the lowest-k bins: with few modes per bin, the power spectrum becomes significantly non-Gaussian and a covariance matrix alone is no longer a complete description.
  • The 3% agreement is comparable to the agreement between semi-analytic and mock-based covariance estimates used for DESI Y1, suggesting it is adequate for current survey analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would replace the measured large-box power spectrum in Eq. (4.5) with a theoretical power spectrum; if that preserves the 3% match, the method becomes a genuine prediction rather than a calibration to the target.
  • The off-diagonal failure at low k could plausibly be repaired by a higher-order correction that scales the trispectrum and super-sample terms the way Eq. (4.5) scales the Gaussian term, which the paper leaves for future work.
  • The missing intermediate-mode contribution might be captured with a tidal-field response in addition to the monopole background response, potentially pushing volume scaling below the 3% floor.
  • Real-survey complications such as window functions and redshift-space distortions likely degrade the 3% match; testing the same scaling on galaxy mocks with survey geometry would establish how much compute can actually be saved.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 addresses the estimation of dark matter power spectrum covariance matrices from ensembles of simulations, focusing on super-sample covariance (SSC) and on scaling covariance matrices between simulation volumes. It compares two separate-universe prescriptions (Sirko and spherical collapse) and two ways of incorporating SSC (addition and ensemble methods), finding that they recover the covariance measured from sub-boxes of a large simulation to within about 10%. The second half of the paper studies volume scaling: using an ensemble of smaller boxes to infer the covariance of a larger survey box, with a proposed bin-centering correction (Eq. 4.5) and an SSC term added via the addition method. The authors report a 3% match for the diagonal covariance elements when scaling the small-box volume up by a factor of 512 (from (312.5 h^-1 Mpc)^3 to (2500 h^-1 Mpc)^3), while noting that the smallest box tested, (156.25 h^-1 Mpc)^3, fails at low k because its lowest bins contain very few modes and become non-Gaussian. The paper argues this volume-scaling approach could substantially reduce the computational cost of covariance estimation for current and future surveys.

Significance. If the central claim holds in a predictive sense, the volume-scaling method would be a practically important shortcut: covariance matrices for large surveys could be estimated from much cheaper small-box simulations. The paper's strengths are its systematic comparison of SSC implementations, its identification of the bin-centering and discrete-mode-number effects, its use of a large sub-box benchmark to validate the SSC methods, and its public release of simulation parameter files and power spectra. The SSC method comparison is a solid, self-contained contribution that confirms and extends previous work. However, as demonstrated, the headline 3% volume-scaling result is partly a calibration rather than an independent prediction: Eq. (4.5) requires the target large-box power spectrum P^L(k) as an input, and the paper measures P^L from the same large-box ensemble that defines the benchmark. The paper therefore needs to show that the method works when P^L is supplied externally (e.g., from an emulator or analytic model) or to explicitly reframe the claim as a consistency test.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.5)] The bin-centering correction in Eq. (4.5) uses P^L(k), the ensemble-average power spectrum of the large-volume mocks, and the benchmark covariance is also computed from that same ensemble. Algebraically, after applying the correction the Gaussian part of the scaled small-box covariance equals the Gaussian covariance built from P^L(k) by construction: the corrected small-box power has mean P^L sqrt(V_{k,S}/V_{k,L}) and a Gaussian variance that, after volume scaling, reproduces the large-box Gaussian covariance. Consequently, the low-k diagonal agreement shown in Fig. 10 is enforced rather than predicted. The manuscript should either (a) demonstrate the method with P^L taken from an external model (e.g., Halofit or an emulator) and show that the 3% agreement persists, or (b) at minimum state clearly that Eq. (4.5) requires P^L as an external input and propagate the uncertainty in P^L into the quoted 3% budget. As written, the central volume-scaling claim is a calibration to the benchmark, not an independent validation.
  2. [§4.2, Figs. 9-10] The abstract and conclusions claim a 3% match in the dark matter power spectrum covariance, but the evidence in Figs. 6-7 is for diagonal elements, while Fig. 9 shows that off-diagonal elements in the lowest k bin (k_j = 0.04 h Mpc^-1) deviate substantially from the large-box covariance after the bin-centering correction, becoming overestimated. The paper itself acknowledges that the correction is designed for the Gaussian piece and is inaccurate for the trispectrum/SSC-dominated off-diagonal terms. The claim should either be restricted explicitly to diagonal elements (with the off-diagonal caveat stated in the abstract) or the correction should be extended to handle the off-diagonal terms before claiming a 3% match for the full covariance matrix.
  3. [§3.4 and §4.2] The paper notes in §3.4 that fast N-body codes such as L-PICOLA underestimate the full non-Gaussian covariance at k > 0.2 h Mpc^-1 compared to full N-body codes, as demonstrated by the comparison with L-Gadget2 results in Fig. 5. Because both the small-box ensembles and the benchmark sub-boxes are generated with L-PICOLA, the 3% volume-scaling agreement is only demonstrated for the approximate code and does not directly establish that the method recovers the true non-linear covariance. The manuscript should either qualify the main claim as L-PICOLA-specific or test the volume-scaling procedure against a full N-body sub-box benchmark in at least one configuration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 10 caption] The caption contains a typo: it states 'the left panel shows the off-diagonal elements' twice; the second reference should be to the right panel.
  2. [Eq. (4.5)] The notation in Eq. (4.5) is confusing: P^L(k) and P^S(k) are introduced as ensemble-average powers, while P_S(k) on the right appears to be the power spectrum of an individual small-box realization. Please use a distinct symbol (e.g., \bar P or a hat) for the single-realization quantity to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§4.2, first paragraph] There is a missing space in 'using theSC addition method ensemble'; this should read 'using the SC addition method ensemble'.
  4. [§5, Conclusions] The sentence quoting 'a 3% match on scales k<1.0 h^-1 Mpc scaling the simulation volume by a factor 512' should explicitly say 'diagonal elements of the covariance' to be consistent with the presented figures, given the off-diagonal caveat in Fig. 9.
  5. [§1 and §4.1] The new contribution relative to Howlett and Percival (2017) [34] should be stated more explicitly. The paper extends that work with a wider range of volume ratios and a new bin-centering correction, but the reader has to infer this from context; a sentence in the introduction or in §4.1 clarifying the new elements would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Eq. 4.5 injects P^L from the benchmark large-box ensemble into the small-box power, so the low-k 3% volume-scaling match is a calibration to the target, not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.5); Section 4.2]
    "Pcorr,S(k) = P L(k) P S(k) s Vk,S Vk,L PS(k), where Pcorr,S(k) is the corrected small volume power spectrum, P L(k) and P S(k) are the ensemble average power of the large and small volume mocks respectively ... This corrective factor was chosen based on the Gaussian behaviour of the covariance matrix at lowk where the bin centering issue is most significant."

    Algebraically, Eq. (4.5) gives Pcorr,S(k) = [P^L(k)/P^S(k)] sqrt(Vk,S/Vk,L) P_S(k), so the ensemble mean of the corrected small-box power is P^L(k) sqrt(Vk,S/Vk,L). Since the Gaussian low-k diagonal covariance scales as P^2/V_k, the volume-scaled corrected covariance becomes approximately (2/V_L)(P^L)^2/V_k,L, the large-box Gaussian covariance. In the validation, P^L is measured from the same (2500 h^-1 Mpc)^3 ensemble that provides the target covariance (Section 4.2), so the low-k diagonal agreement in Figures 6, 7, and 10 is enforced by the input P^L rather than predicted. The method would be predictive if P^L came from an emulator, Halofit, or an independent large box, but the paper does not test that variant or propagate P^L uncertainty into the 3% budget.

full rationale

The core SSC-method comparison in Section 3 is self-contained: the Sirko, spherical-collapse, addition, and ensemble prescriptions are validated against sub-box covariances from an independent L = 5000 h^-1 Mpc simulation, and the agreement is an honest external check. The volume-scaling section, however, contains a load-bearing calibration. Equation (4.5) corrects each small-box power by the ratio P^L/P^S, and because the Gaussian low-k covariance scales as P^2/V_k, inserting P^L forces the volume-scaled Gaussian diagonal to match the large-box Gaussian diagonal by construction. Section 4.2 then obtains both P^L and the target covariance from the same (2500 h^-1 Mpc)^3 ensemble, making the central validation partly in-sample. The paper does not demonstrate the method with P^L supplied by an emulator or an independent large box, nor does it propagate P^L uncertainty into the quoted 3%. The non-Gaussian and SSC/trispectrum components are not forced by Eq. (4.5) and remain genuinely predictive, which is why the circularity is partial rather than total. Self-citations such as [34] are used for context and prior validation, not to forbid alternatives, so no self-citation circularity is identified beyond the calibration step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard separate-universe and SSC assumptions. The main non-standard element is the bin-centering correction, which is calibrated to the target power spectrum rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (2)
  • Bin-centering correction ratio P^L(k)/P^S(k) = per-k-bin ratio of large-box to small-box ensemble-average power spectra
    Eq 4.5 uses this ratio measured from the same ensembles to rescale small-box power spectra, so the volume-scaled covariance is calibrated to the target large-box power spectrum.
  • Background overdensity amplitude for separate universe pairs = delta_b = +/- 0.01
    Section 3.2: the power spectrum derivative is computed from pairs with delta_b = +/- 0.01; the result should be linear in delta_b, but this is a chosen amplitude.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The power spectrum response to a background density is linear, giving the SSC term in Eq 2.7.
    Section 2.2; standard in the SSC literature, assumed valid for super-survey modes in the linear regime.
  • domain assumption The power spectrum derivative dP/ddelta_b is independent of simulation volume.
    Section 4.2: used to apply the derivative from 2500 Mpc/h simulations to all smaller volumes.
  • domain assumption Super-sample modes relevant here are in the linear regime.
    Section 4.1: the SSC treatment is only expected to work if the missing modes are linear; this can break for very small boxes.
  • domain assumption The sub-box covariance from the 5000 Mpc/h box represents the true covariance including SSC.
    Section 3.2: used as the benchmark; the 5000 Mpc/h box is assumed large enough that its sub-boxes contain the correct SSC.
  • domain assumption L-PICOLA accurately models the nonlinear power spectrum and covariance on the scales of interest.
    Section 3.1; the authors note in Section 3.4 that fast N-body codes underestimate non-Gaussian covariance at k > 0.2 h/Mpc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Super sample covariance and the volume scaling of galaxy survey covariance matrices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOOGHWKN

@misc{pith2026241116948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Super sample covariance and the volume scaling of galaxy survey covariance matrices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOOGHWKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16948}
}
read the original abstract

Super sample covariance (SSC) is important when estimating covariance matrices using a set of mock catalogues for galaxy surveys. If the underlying cosmological simulations do not include the variation in background parameters appropriate for the simulation sizes, then the scatter between mocks will be missing the SSC component. The coupling between large and small modes due to non-linear structure growth makes this pernicious on small scales. We compare different methods for generating ensembles of mocks with SSC built in to the covariance, and contrast against methods where the SSC component is computed and added to the covariance separately. We find that several perturbative expansions, developed to derive background fluctuations, give similar results. We then consider scaling covariance matrices calculated for simulations of different volumes to improve the accuracy of the covariance matrix for a given computational time. On large scales, we find that the primary limitation is from the discrete number of modes contributing to the measured power spectrum, and we propose a new method for correcting this effect. Correct implementation of SSC and the effect of discrete mode numbers allows covariance matrices created from mocks to be scaled between volumes, potentially leading to a significant saving on computational resources when producing covariance matrices. We argue that a sub-percent match is difficult to achieve because of the effects of modes on scales between the box sizes, which cannot be easily included. Even so, when working in real space and cubic boxes, we show that a 3% match in the dark matter power spectrum covariance is achievable on scales of interest for current surveys scaling the simulation volume by 512x, costing a small fraction of the computational time of running full-sized simulations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, arXiv e-prints (2016) arXiv:1611.00036 [1611.00036]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Laureijs, J

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J.L. Auguères, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole et al.,Euclid Definition Study Report, arXiv e-prints (2011) arXiv:1110.3193 [1110.3193]

    arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Ivezić, S.M

    Ž. Ivezić, S.M. Kahn, J.A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman et al.,LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products, ApJ 873 (2019) 111 [0805.2366]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue et al.,Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report, arXiv e-prints (2015) arXiv:1503.03757 [1503.03757]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    O. Doré, J. Bock, M. Ashby, P. Capak, A. Cooray, R. de Putter et al.,Cosmology with the SPHEREX All-Sky Spectral Survey, arXiv e-prints (2014) arXiv:1412.4872 [1412.4872]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Dawson, D.J

    K.S. Dawson, D.J. Schlegel, C.P. Ahn, S.F. Anderson, É. Aubourg, S. Bailey et al.,The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey of SDSS-III, AJ 145 (2013) 10 [1208.0022]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Including parameter dependence in the data and covariance for cosmological inference

    M. White and N. Padmanabhan,Including parameter dependence in the data and covariance for cosmological inference, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2015 (2015) 058 [1508.00566]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Cosmological parameter inference from galaxy clustering: The effect of the posterior distribution of the power spectrum

    B. Kalus, W.J. Percival and L. Samushia,Cosmological parameter inference from galaxy clustering: the effect of the posterior distribution of the power spectrum, MNRAS 455 (2016) 2573 [1504.03979]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, W.J

    M.S. Wang, W.J. Percival, S. Avila, R. Crittenden and D. Bianchi,Cosmological inference from galaxy-clustering power spectrum: Gaussianization and covariance decomposition, MNRAS 486 (2019) 951 [1811.08155]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03002 [2404.03002]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Feldman, N

    H.A. Feldman, N. Kaiser and J.A. Peacock,Power-Spectrum Analysis of Three-dimensional Redshift Surveys, ApJ 426 (1994) 23 [astro-ph/9304022]

    1994 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bertolini, K

    D. Bertolini, K. Schutz, M.P. Solon, J.R. Walsh and K.M. Zurek,Non-Gaussian covariance of the matter power spectrum in the effective field theory of large scale structure, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 123505 [1512.07630]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Carron, M

    J. Carron, M. Wolk and I. Szapudi,On the information content of the matter power spectrum, MNRAS 453 (2015) 450 [1412.5511]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hou, R.N

    J. Hou, R.N. Cahn, O.H.E. Philcox and Z. Slepian,Analytic Gaussian covariance matrices for galaxy N -point correlation functions, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 043515 [2108.01714]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Mohammed and U

    I. Mohammed and U. Seljak,Analytic model for the matter power spectrum, its covariance matrix and baryonic effects, MNRAS 445 (2014) 3382 [1407.0060]. – 21 –

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Neyrinck,Removable Matter-power-spectrum Covariance from Bias Fluctuations, ApJ 736 (2011) 8 [1103.5476]

    M.C. Neyrinck,Removable Matter-power-spectrum Covariance from Bias Fluctuations, ApJ 736 (2011) 8 [1103.5476]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Seljak,Analytic model for galaxy and dark matter clustering, MNRAS 318 (2000) 203 [astro-ph/0001493]

    U. Seljak,Analytic model for galaxy and dark matter clustering, MNRAS 318 (2000) 203 [astro-ph/0001493]

    2000 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Taylor, B

    A. Taylor, B. Joachimi and T. Kitching,Putting the precision in precision cosmology: How accurate should your data covariance matrix be?, MNRAS 432 (2013) 1928 [1212.4359]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sugiyama, S

    N.S. Sugiyama, S. Saito, F. Beutler and H.-J. Seo,Perturbation theory approach to predict the covariance matrices of the galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum in redshift space, MNRAS 497 (2020) 1684 [1908.06234]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Wadekar and R

    D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro,Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 123517 [1910.02914]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chartier, B

    N. Chartier, B. Wandelt, Y. Akrami and F. Villaescusa-Navarro,CARPool: fast, accurate computation of large-scale structure statistics by pairing costly and cheap cosmological simulations, MNRAS 503 (2021) 1897 [2009.08970]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Chartier and B.D

    N. Chartier and B.D. Wandelt,CARPool covariance: fast, unbiased covariance estimation for large-scale structure observables, MNRAS 509 (2022) 2220 [2106.11718]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dodelson and M.D

    S. Dodelson and M.D. Schneider,The effect of covariance estimator error on cosmological parameter constraints, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 063537 [1304.2593]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Percival, A.J

    W.J. Percival, A.J. Ross, A.G. Sánchez, L. Samushia, A. Burden, R. Crittenden et al.,The clustering of Galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: including covariance matrix errors, MNRAS 439 (2014) 2531 [1312.4841]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Paz and A.G

    D.J. Paz and A.G. Sánchez,Improving the precision matrix for precision cosmology, MNRAS 454 (2015) 4326 [1508.03162]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pope and I

    A.C. Pope and I. Szapudi,Shrinkage estimation of the power spectrum covariance matrix, MNRAS 389 (2008) 766 [0711.2509]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Joachimi,Non-linear shrinkage estimation of large-scale structure covariance, MNRAS 466 (2017) L83 [1612.00752]

    B. Joachimi,Non-linear shrinkage estimation of large-scale structure covariance, MNRAS 466 (2017) L83 [1612.00752]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gaztañaga and R

    E. Gaztañaga and R. Scoccimarro,The three-point function in large-scale structure: redshift distortions and galaxy bias, MNRAS 361 (2005) 824 [astro-ph/0501637]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Friedrich and T

    O. Friedrich and T. Eifler,Precision matrix expansion - efficient use of numerical simulations in estimating errors on cosmological parameters, MNRAS 473 (2018) 4150 [1703.07786]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pearson and L

    D.W. Pearson and L. Samushia,Estimating the power spectrum covariance matrix with fewer mock samples, MNRAS 457 (2016) 993 [1509.00064]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Fumagalli, A

    Euclid Collaboration, A. Fumagalli, A. Saro, S. Borgani, T. Castro, M. Costanzi et al.,Euclid preparation. XXXV. Covariance model validation for the two-point correlation function of galaxy clusters, A&A 683 (2024) A253 [2211.12965]

    2024

  24. [32]

    Heavens, R

    A.F. Heavens, R. Jimenez and O. Lahav,Massive lossless data compression and multiple parameter estimation from galaxy spectra, MNRAS 317 (2000) 965 [astro-ph/9911102]

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. Lai, C. Howlett and T.M. Davis,Faster cosmological analysis with power spectrum without simulations, MNRAS 530 (2024) 4519 [2306.00388]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Howlett and W.J

    C. Howlett and W.J. Percival,Galaxy two-point covariance matrix estimation for next generation surveys, MNRAS 472 (2017) 4935 [1709.03057]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Klypin and F

    A. Klypin and F. Prada,Dark matter statistics for large galaxy catalogues: power spectra and covariance matrices, MNRAS 478 (2018) 4602 [1701.05690]. – 22 –

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Klypin and F

    A. Klypin and F. Prada,Effects of long-wavelength fluctuations in large galaxy surveys, MNRAS 489 (2019) 1684 [1809.03637]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dong-Páez, A

    C.A. Dong-Páez, A. Smith, A.O. Szewciw, J. Ereza, M.H. Abdullah, C. Hernández-Aguayo et al.,The Uchuu-SDSS galaxy light-cones: a clustering, redshift space distortion and baryonic acoustic oscillation study, MNRAS 528 (2024) 7236 [2208.00540]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ereza, F

    J. Ereza, F. Prada, A. Klypin, T. Ishiyama, A. Smith, C.M. Baugh et al.,The UCHUU-GLAM BOSS and eBOSS LRG lightcones: exploring clustering and covariance errors, MNRAS 532 (2024) 1659 [2311.14456]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Meiksin, M

    A. Meiksin, M. White and J.A. Peacock,Baryonic signatures in large-scale structure, MNRAS 304 (1999) 851 [astro-ph/9812214]

    1999 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Scoccimarro, M

    R. Scoccimarro, M. Zaldarriaga and L. Hui,Power Spectrum Correlations Induced by Nonlinear Clustering, ApJ 527 (1999) 1 [astro-ph/9901099]

    1999 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Takada and W

    M. Takada and W. Hu,Power spectrum super-sample covariance, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 123504

    2013

  34. [42]

    Hu and A.V

    W. Hu and A.V. Kravtsov,Sample Variance Considerations for Cluster Surveys, ApJ 584 (2003) 702 [astro-ph/0203169]

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hamilton, C.D

    A.J.S. Hamilton, C.D. Rimes and R. Scoccimarro,On measuring the covariance matrix of the non-linear power spectrum from simulations, MNRAS 371 (2006) 1188 [astro-ph/0511416]

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gnedin, A.V

    N.Y. Gnedin, A.V. Kravtsov and D.H. Rudd,Implementing the DC Mode in Cosmological Simulations with Supercomoving Variables, ApJS 194 (2011) 46 [1104.1428]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Takahashi, N

    R. Takahashi, N. Yoshida, M. Takada, T. Matsubara, N. Sugiyama, I. Kayo et al.,Simulations of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. II. Covariance Matrix of the Matter Power Spectrum, ApJ 700 (2009) 479 [0902.0371]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Baldauf, U

    T. Baldauf, U. Seljak, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Galaxy bias and non-linear structure formation in general relativity, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2011 (2011) 031 [1106.5507]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y. Li, W. Hu and M. Takada,Super-sample covariance in simulations, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 083519

    2014

  40. [48]

    Wagner, F

    C. Wagner, F. Schmidt, C.T. Chiang and E. Komatsu,Separate universe simulations., MNRAS 448 (2015) L11 [1409.6294]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Akitsu, M

    K. Akitsu, M. Takada and Y. Li,Large-scale tidal effect on redshift-space power spectrum in a finite-volume survey, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 083522 [1611.04723]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Akitsu and M

    K. Akitsu and M. Takada,Impact of large-scale tides on cosmological distortions via redshift-space power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 063527 [1711.00012]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Barreira and F

    A. Barreira and F. Schmidt,Responses in large-scale structure, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2017 (2017) 053 [1703.09212]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Barreira and F

    A. Barreira and F. Schmidt,Response approach to the matter power spectrum covariance, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2017 (2017) 051 [1705.01092]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    K.C. Chan, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah and J. Noreña,Bispectrum supersample covariance, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 043532 [1709.02473]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y. Li, M. Schmittfull and U. Seljak,Galaxy power-spectrum responses and redshift-space super-sample effect, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018 (2018) 022 [1711.00018]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Barreira, E

    A. Barreira, E. Krause and F. Schmidt,Complete super-sample lensing covariance in the response approach, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018 (2018) 015 [1711.07467]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Barreira,The squeezed matter bispectrum covariance with responses, J

    A. Barreira,The squeezed matter bispectrum covariance with responses, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2019 (2019) 008 [1901.01243]. – 23 –

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Barreira, D

    A. Barreira, D. Nelson, A. Pillepich, V. Springel, F. Schmidt, R. Pakmor et al.,Separate Universe simulations with IllustrisTNG: baryonic effects on power spectrum responses and higher-order statistics, MNRAS 488 (2019) 2079 [1904.02070]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Lacasa and J

    F. Lacasa and J. Grain,Fast and easy super-sample covariance of large-scale structure observables, A&A 624 (2019) A61 [1809.05437]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Castorina and A

    E. Castorina and A. Moradinezhad Dizgah,Local Primordial Non-Gaussianities and super-sample variance, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2020 (2020) 007 [2005.14677]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Philcox, D.N

    O.H.E. Philcox, D.N. Spergel and F. Villaescusa-Navarro,Effective halo model: Creating a physical and accurate model of the matter power spectrum and cluster counts, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 123520 [2004.09515]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Halder and A

    A. Halder and A. Barreira,Response approach to the integrated shear 3-point correlation function: the impact of baryonic effects on small scales, MNRAS 515 (2022) 4639 [2201.05607]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Zhai and W.J

    Z. Zhai and W.J. Percival,Sample variance for supernovae distance measurements and the hubble tension, Physical Review D106 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Bayer, J

    A.E. Bayer, J. Liu, R. Terasawa, A. Barreira, Y. Zhong and Y. Feng,Super-sample covariance of the power spectrum, bispectrum, halos, voids, and their cross covariances, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 043521 [2210.15647]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gouyou Beauchamps, F

    S. Gouyou Beauchamps, F. Lacasa, I. Tutusaus, M. Aubert, P. Baratta, A. Gorce et al.,Impact of survey geometry and super-sample covariance on future photometric galaxy surveys, A&A 659 (2022) A128 [2109.02308]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Terasawa, R

    R. Terasawa, R. Takahashi, T. Nishimichi and M. Takada,Separate universe approach to evaluate nonlinear matter power spectrum for nonflatΛ CDM model, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 083504 [2205.10339]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Linke, P.A

    L. Linke, P.A. Burger, S. Heydenreich, L. Porth and P. Schneider,What is the super-sample covariance? A fresh perspective for second-order shear statistics, A&A 681 (2024) A33 [2302.12277]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-scale galaxy bias, Phys. Rep.733 (2018) 1 [1611.09787]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Sirko,Initial conditions to cosmologicalN-body simulations, or, how to run an ensemble of simulations, The Astrophysical Journal634 (2005) 728

    E. Sirko,Initial conditions to cosmologicalN-body simulations, or, how to run an ensemble of simulations, The Astrophysical Journal634 (2005) 728

    2005

  61. [69]

    P. McDonald,Toward a Measurement of the Cosmological Geometry at z~2: Predicting Lyα Forest Correlation in Three Dimensions and the Potential of Future Data Sets, ApJ 585 (2003) 34 [astro-ph/0108064]

    2003 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Goldberg and M.S

    D.M. Goldberg and M.S. Vogeley,Simulating Voids, ApJ 605 (2004) 1 [astro-ph/0307191]

    2004 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Martino and R.K

    M.C. Martino and R.K. Sheth,On the equivalence between the effective cosmology and excursion set treatments of environment, MNRAS 394 (2009) 2109 [0901.0757]

    2009 arXiv

  64. [72]

    L. Dai, E. Pajer and F. Schmidt,On separate universes, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2015 (2015) 059 [1504.00351]

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Tormen and E

    G. Tormen and E. Bertschinger,Adding Long-Wavelength Modes to an N-Body Simulation, ApJ 472 (1996) 14 [astro-ph/9512131]

    1996 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cole,Adding Long-Wavelength Power to N-body simulations, MNRAS 286 (1997) 38 [astro-ph/9604046]

    S. Cole,Adding Long-Wavelength Power to N-body simulations, MNRAS 286 (1997) 38 [astro-ph/9604046]

    1997 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Percival,Cosmological structure formation in a homogeneous dark energy background, A&A 443 (2005) 819 [astro-ph/0508156]

    W.J. Percival,Cosmological structure formation in a homogeneous dark energy background, A&A 443 (2005) 819 [astro-ph/0508156]. – 24 –

    2005 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Howlett, M

    C. Howlett, M. Manera and W.J. Percival,L-PICOLA: A parallel code for fast dark matter simulation, Astronomy and Computing12 (2015) 109 [1506.03737]

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Tassev, M

    S. Tassev, M. Zaldarriaga and D.J. Eisenstein,Solving large scale structure in ten easy steps with COLA, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2013 (2013) 036 [1301.0322]

    2013 arXiv

  70. [78]

    N. Hand, Y. Feng, F. Beutler, Y. Li, C. Modi, U. Seljak et al.,nbodykit: An open-source, massively parallel toolkit for large-scale structure, The Astronomical Journal156 (2018) 160

    2018

  71. [79]

    de Putter, C

    R. de Putter, C. Wagner, O. Mena, L. Verde and W.J. Percival,Thinking outside the box: effects of modes larger than the survey on matter power spectrum covariance, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2012 (2012) 019 [1111.6596]

    2012 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. White,Power Spectra Estimation for Weak Lensing, ApJ 554 (2001) 67 [astro-ph/0010352]

    2001 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Springel,The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2, MNRAS 364 (2005) 1105 [astro-ph/0505010]

    V. Springel,The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2, MNRAS 364 (2005) 1105 [astro-ph/0505010]

    2005 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Takahashi, N

    R. Takahashi, N. Yoshida, M. Takada, T. Matsubara, N. Sugiyama, I. Kayo et al., Non-Gaussian Error Contribution to Likelihood Analysis of the Matter Power Spectrum, ApJ 726 (2011) 7 [0912.1381]

    2011 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Rashkovetskyi, D

    M. Rashkovetskyi, D. Forero-Sánchez, A. de Mattia, D.J. Eisenstein, N. Padmanabhan, H. Seo et al.,Semi-analytical covariance matrices for two-point correlation function for DESI 2024 data, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03007 [2404.03007]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Bond, A.H

    J.R. Bond, A.H. Jaffe and L. Knox,Radical Compression of Cosmic Microwave Background Data, ApJ 533 (2000) 19 [astro-ph/9808264]

    2000 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Smith, A

    S. Smith, A. Challinor and G. Rocha,What can be learned from the lensed cosmic microwave background B-mode polarization power spectrum?, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 023517 [astro-ph/0511703]

    2006 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Percival and M.L

    W.J. Percival and M.L. Brown,Likelihood techniques for the combined analysis of CMB temperature and polarization power spectra, MNRAS 372 (2006) 1104 [astro-ph/0604547]

    2006 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Hamimeche and A

    S. Hamimeche and A. Lewis,Likelihood analysis of CMB temperature and polarization power spectra, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 103013 [0801.0554]

    2008 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Bahr-Kalus, D

    B. Bahr-Kalus, D. Parkinson and E.-M. Mueller,Measurement of the matter-radiation equality scale using the extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey quasar sample, MNRAS 524 (2023) 2463 [2302.07484]. – 25 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.