Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 7 cited by

Reducing nuisance prior sensitivity via non-linear reparameterization, with application to EFT analyses of large-scale structure

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A rotation of nuisance parameters makes EFT cosmological fits insensitive to nuisance priors.

desk verdict Useful method for reducing nuisance-prior projection effects in EFT-of-LSS, but the 'prior-independence' claim is stronger than what the evidence supports; the paper demonstrates reduction, not elimination. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03503 v3 pith:ATIH6J43 submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.CO

S. Paradiso , M. Bonici , M. Chen , W. J. Percival , G. D'Amico , H. Zhang , G. McGee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords nuisancepriorsensitivityparameterreparameterizationGeneralizedAdditiveModelsEFToflarge-scalestructureprojectioneffectsBayesiancosmologygalaxypowerspectrum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a reparameterization technique that removes the correlation between cosmological parameters and nuisance parameters in the likelihood of EFT-based large-scale structure analyses. The method fits a flexible regression of each nuisance parameter on the cosmological parameters using Generalized Additive Models, then redefines the nuisance parameters as the residuals of that fit. After the transformation, the likelihood becomes approximately separable, so the marginal posterior for cosmological parameters no longer depends on the choice of prior for the nuisance parameters. The authors demonstrate on 100 simulated galaxy power-spectrum datasets that this removes prior-driven biases, especially on the scalar amplitude and dark-energy equation of state, without broadening the constraints.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Generalized Additive Model conditional-expectation fit, $E[N_j|C] \approx \sum_l f_{lj}(C_l)$, with each $f_{lj}$ expanded in 20 penalized cubic B-splines and fitted by penalized least squares to the posterior samples of a preliminary run. The transformed nuisance parameter is the residual $N'_j = N_j - E[N_j|C]$, which is approximately uncorrelated with every smooth function in the model; when the true dependence is additive, this removes the dependence of the likelihood on $N'_j$ from the marginal cosmological posterior.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on the 100 mocks with a deliberately shifted or much wider nuisance prior, e.g. a uniform prior of width 100 on every EFT parameter instead of the standard priors in Table 2, and measure the shift in the stacked MAP for $\ln 10^{10} A_s$ and $w_0$ in the GAM-transformed basis: if the shift remains comparable to the un-transformed bias, the claimed independence has failed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an additive, data-adaptive fit of the conditional mean $E[N_j | C]$ of each nuisance parameter on the cosmological parameters provides a reparameterization $N'_j = N_j - \sum_l f_{lj}(C_l)$ in which the nuisance parameters are approximately independent of the cosmological parameters in the likelihood. Once this holds, the joint posterior factorizes as a product of a cosmological and a nuisance part, so any independent prior on the rotated nuisance parameters drops out of the marginal posterior for the cosmological parameters. The paper argues that the reduction of the prior projection effect is obtained without discarding information: the transformation merely separates the part of the nuisance variation explained by cosmology from the part that is not. In the EFTofLSS application, both a linear and a GAM-based transformation reduce the biases on $\ln 10^{10} A_s$ and $w_0$ relative to the un-transformed fit, and iterating the transformation a few times brings the residual biases below $1\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The GAM fitted to the preliminary posterior samples captures all statistically relevant dependence of each nuisance parameter on the cosmological parameters, so that the residuals are truly independent of cosmology within the volume that the data and priors actually probe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Applying the transformation to EFT-based full-shape analyses of BOSS, eBOSS, or DESI data would make the reported cosmological constraints insensitive to the widths, locations, and shapes of the priors placed on galaxy bias, counterterm, and stochastic parameters.
  • The method removes the need to choose physically motivated nuisance priors (e.g. HOD-informed priors) as a protection against projection effects, while still allowing informative priors on the cosmological parameters.
  • Because the rotated nuisance parameters are standardized to unit variance, the method supplies a natural default prior choice for nuisance parameters in future survey analyses.
  • The iterative variant of the method reduces the remaining non-linear residual correlation, so the gain in robustness grows with the number of iterations at the cost of increased MCMC runtime.
  • A differentiable version of the GAM would allow Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampling, making the method scalable to the much larger nuisance-parameter space of multi-redshift-bin surveys like DESI.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same residualization idea could be applied to any Bayesian analysis with a nuisance-dominated likelihood, e.g. weak-lensing shear calibration or galaxy-cluster mass-observable relations, whenever a preliminary posterior sample is available.
  • The method's reliance on sampling the prior-influenced posterior region implies that if the true likelihood support lies far outside the preliminary sample volume, the GAM fit will not capture the dependence there; a two-stage design with wider initial priors would test this.
  • The paper's separability result is framed as approximate for non-additive couplings; a natural stronger test is to check whether the variance of the marginal cosmological posterior, averaged over many simulated data realizations, changes when the nuisance prior is moved by several sigma.
  • The linear-model variant performing nearly as well as the GAM on these simulations suggests that, for the current EFTofLSS likelihood, most of the cosmological-nuisance coupling is captured by the leading linear term; non-additive couplings may matter more at higher $k_{\max}$ or for higher-order statistics such as the bispectrum.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reparameterization method, based on Generalized Additive Models (GAMs), that aims to reduce the sensitivity of cosmological parameter posteriors to the choice of nuisance parameter priors in Effective Field Theory (EFT) analyses of large-scale structure. The method first fits a preliminary model, then fits a GAM for the conditional mean of each nuisance parameter given the cosmological parameters, and finally reparameterizes the model so that the new nuisance parameters are residuals from this fit. The authors demonstrate the approach on 100 simulated galaxy power-spectrum datasets, comparing the pre-transformed basis (PTB) with linear-model (LM) and GAM-based transformations, and report reduced biases in the maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimates for several cosmological parameters, particularly ln 10^10 A_s and w0. They also present an iterative version of the transformation and several tests intended to show that the method does not inject information or systematically underestimate uncertainties.

Significance. The method is practically motivated and, if the claims are supported, could provide a useful tool for EFT-based cosmological analyses, where nuisance-prior projection effects are known to be substantial. The empirical evaluation is a strength: 100 realizations with known true parameter values, frequentist MAP-bias statistics, a test involving 100 iterations to check for uncertainty shrinkage (Fig. 9), and a comparison of average posterior widths to the empirical scatter of posterior means (Table 5). These tests go beyond what is common in method papers and provide meaningful evidence that the transformation does not simply shrink posteriors. However, the central theoretical claim—that after reparameterization the likelihood becomes approximately separable and hence the marginal posterior for cosmological parameters is insensitive to any independent nuisance prior—is not established by the construction, which only enforces approximate zero conditional mean of the new nuisance parameters given the cosmological parameters. The paper's own Sec. 6 concedes residual coupling.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.5)] The claim that after reparameterization 'any independent nuisance parameter prior will not affect the marginal posterior for cosmological parameters' (Sec. 1) is not supported by the construction in Sec. 2.1. The transformation N' = N - B(C)β ensures only that the conditional mean of N' given C is approximately zero in the preliminary posterior samples. Conditional independence, which is required for likelihood separability f(y|C,N') = f_C(y|C) f_N(y|N'), is a much stronger condition; the conditional variance and higher moments of N'|C can still depend on C, and through them the prior on N' can influence the C marginal. In the EFT model, the nuisance parameter b1 enters the redshift-space kernels nonlinearly (Eqs. 3.1-3.2), so such C-dependent coupling is concrete. The paper itself acknowledges in Sec. 6 that residual coupling remains for non-additive dependence. Please reword the abstract and introduction to claim reduction rather than elimination of nuisance-prior sensitivity, and add a quantitative test of residual sensitivity, e.g., by repeating the Step 3 fit with several distinct priors on N' (varying width and location) and checking stability of the C posteriors.
  2. [Sec. 5, Table 3] The text in Sec. 5 states that the authors 'report also relative bias, in units of the standard deviation, and 95% credible interval coverage' for the MAP estimates across the 100 datasets, but Table 3 lists only σ and Δ[σ] and no coverage values are given anywhere in the paper. Credible-interval coverage is a key frequentist diagnostic for whether the reparameterization changes the calibration of the reported uncertainties, and it is directly relevant to the paper's claim that the method does not misrepresent uncertainty. Please either add coverage rates to Table 3 (or a new table/figure) or remove the claim that coverage is reported.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Fig. 9 and Table 5] The no-information-injection test iterates on a single dataset, and the r statistics in Table 5 are averages over the 100 realizations but do not probe sensitivity to different choices of the nuisance prior. Throughout the paper, the only prior used on the rotated nuisance parameters N' is a standard normal N(0,1). Consequently, the central assertion that the marginal posterior for cosmological parameters does not depend on 'simple priors placed on nuisance terms' is not empirically tested. To support the headline claim, the authors should run the reparameterized fit with at least two or three different priors on N' (e.g., N(0, α²) with α varied by a factor of a few, and a shifted Gaussian) and show that the cosmological posteriors remain stable. If they do not remain stable, the paper should explicitly state the range of priors for which the method is robust.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Step 3 and Sec. 6] The method uses the same data to determine the transformation in Steps 1 and 3, and the prior on N' is likelihood-dependent, a fact the authors acknowledge in Sec. 6 as a violation of the strong likelihood principle. This is not inherently disqualifying, but it means the procedure is best characterized as a data-adaptive stabilization of posterior inference rather than a standard Bayesian analysis with a fixed prior. The paper should state this scope more prominently and discuss the risk of overfitting to the noise realization more thoroughly. The current checks (Fig. 9 and Table 5) are suggestive but not conclusive; for example, Fig. 9 examines only one dataset and Table 5's r statistic could remain near 1 even if the method systematically shifts posteriors in a prior-dependent way.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] After Eq. (2.2), 'orthogonal parameterization' should be 'orthogonal reparameterization' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Step 3] The estimation of the scaling factor α is described in one sentence; a formula or a short pseudocode block would make the procedure reproducible and easier to follow.
  3. [Sec. 4] When describing the 100 generated datasets, please state explicitly that the noise realizations are independent draws from the same covariance matrix, and confirm that the covariance matrix is fixed (not re-estimated per realization).
  4. [Appendix B, Fig. 11] The caption says 'The red contours shows' — this should be 'show'.
  5. [Table 4] The column headers 'iter 1' through 'iter 6' are not explained in the caption; please define them as the iterations of the GAM iterative approach described in Sec. 4.1.
  6. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.1)] The term '2Z1(µ)P11(k)' immediately before the counterterm bracket appears to be missing a multiplication symbol; please check the typesetting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method's double use of data and the unproven step from sample orthogonality to likelihood separability are correctness concerns, not reductions of the target result to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is that the GAM-based reparameterization makes the likelihood approximately separable, so marginal posteriors for cosmological parameters become insensitive to nuisance-prior choice. Inspecting the derivation chain, the construction in Sec. 2.1 only guarantees approximate zero conditional mean of N' given C in the preliminary posterior samples (Eqs. 2.1-2.5); it does not by itself imply likelihood factorization. The leap from 'approximately uncorrelated with each f_l(C_l)' to 'Inferences about C now depend only on the likelihood and the prior for C' is an unproven assumption, and the paper itself concedes in Sec. 6 that residual coupling remains for non-additive dependence. This is a logical/correctness gap, not a circular reduction: no equation defines the target posterior in terms of the fitted transformation, and the claimed insensitivity is not equivalent to the GAM fit by construction. The method does use the same data twice (Step 1 preliminary fit and Step 3 reparameterized fit), and the prior on N' is likelihood-dependent, as the authors explicitly acknowledge in Sec. 5.1 and Sec. 6; this is an empirical-Bayes-style double use of data that warrants scrutiny, but it does not amount to renaming a fitted parameter as a prediction or defining the output in terms of the input. The paper validates the approach against 100 simulated datasets with known true cosmological parameters, reporting frequentist bias and coverage (Tab. 3) and an iterative test showing no continued uncertainty shrinkage (Fig. 9). These external checks make the central demonstration self-contained against known truth rather than circular. The EFT model and emulator are cited from prior work, including some by the authors, but those citations are computational/modeling inputs, not uniqueness theorems or unverified premises that force the conclusion. Overall, no specific circular step satisfying the evidence standard can be identified.

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

The method rests on the EFT-of-LSS forward model (taken from PyBird/Effort.jl), the additive GAM approximation for the conditional mean of each nuisance parameter, the statistical leap from sample-level decorrelation to likelihood separability, and the fidelity of the assumed covariance matrix. The free parameters are the GAM basis and hyperparameters, the per-dataset scaling factor alpha, and the heuristic iteration count.

free parameters (4)
  • GAM basis size K and spline order = K=20, order 3
    Chosen by hand for all GAM fits; controls the flexibility of the orthogonalization mapping and hence the residual correlation after transformation (Sec 4, step (b)).
  • Smoothness penalty lambda for GAM = selected by pyGAM via GCV/REML
    Algorithmically chosen, but it affects the fitted conditional mean and therefore the transformation; not reported per fit.
  • Scaling factor alpha for rotated nuisance parameters = not reported per parameter
    Estimated per dataset by sampling a constant likelihood in the PTB and projecting to the TB (Sec 2.2, step 3); sets the amplitude of the standard-normal priors on N' so that induced priors match the PTB prior volume.
  • Number of GAM iterations = 6 (single dataset)
    Stopping rule is heuristic: 'converged' after 3-4 iterations; the choice affects the final bias reductions in Table 4 (Sec 4.1, Sec 5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The EFT-of-LSS power spectrum model (Eq. 3.1) with its 10 nuisance parameters is an adequate forward model for the simulated data.
    The analysis inherits the validity of EFTofLSS as implemented in PyBird/Effort.jl; the method's calibration is only as good as this model (Sec 3).
  • ad hoc to paper Additivity: E[N_j|C] = sum_l f_lj(C_l), i.e., no interactions between cosmological parameters in their effect on each nuisance parameter.
    Imposed in step (b) of Sec 4; the authors note that non-additive dependence would leave residual coupling (Sec 6).
  • domain assumption Orthogonality in the preliminary posterior implies approximate separability of the likelihood in the transformed variables.
    The key statistical leap in Sec 2.1: decorrelation of N' with functions of C in samples from Step 1 is assumed to carry over to the likelihood; only tested empirically, not proven.
  • domain assumption The covariance matrix from CovaPT is accurate for generating noise realizations.
    Used to create the 100 datasets (Sec 4); systematic errors in the covariance would change the demonstration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reducing nuisance prior sensitivity via non-linear reparameterization, with application to EFT analyses of large-scale structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATIH6J43

@misc{pith2026241203503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reducing nuisance prior sensitivity via non-linear reparameterization, with application to EFT analyses of large-scale structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATIH6J43}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03503}
}
read the original abstract

Many physical models contain nuisance parameters that quantify unknown properties of an experiment that are not of primary relevance. Typically, these cannot be measured except by fitting the models to the data from the experiment, requiring simultaneous measurement of interesting parameters that are our target of inference and nuisance terms that are not directly of interest. A recent example of this is fitting Effective Field Theory (EFT) models to large-scale structure (LSS) data to make cosmological inferences. These models have a large number of nuisance parameters that are typically correlated with cosmological parameters in the posterior, leading to strong dependence on the nuisance parameter priors. We introduce a reparametrization method that leverages Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) to decorrelate nuisance parameters from the parameters of interest in the likelihood, even in the presence of non-linear relationships. This reparametrization forms a natural basis within which to define priors that are independent between nuisance and target parameters: the separation means that the marginal posterior for cosmological parameters does not depend on simple priors placed on nuisance terms. In application to EFT models using LSS data, we demonstrate that the proposed approach leads to robust cosmological inference.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Alleviating prior dependencies for DESI DR1 clustering fits through reparameterization

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Jeffreys prior over EFTofLSS coefficients mitigates projection effects in DESI DR1 power spectrum multipole fits, recentering posteriors for late-time expansion parameters.

  2. Reanalyzing DESI DR1: 5. Cosmological Constraints with Simulation-Based Priors

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulation-based priors applied to DESI DR1 full-shape data sharpen cosmological constraints (σ8 error halved) and yield Mν<0.090 eV in w0waCDM, but the results depend on HOD modeling assumptions.

  3. The simple way to measure evolving dark energy without prior-volume effects

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Absorbing the AP and growth amplitudes into EFTofLSS nuisance parameters removes prior-volume shifts and yields Stage III LSS-only evolving dark energy constraints aligned with DESI.

  4. One-Loop Galaxy Bispectrum: Consistent Theory, Efficient Analysis with COBRA, and Implications for Cosmological Parameters

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

    Using the COBRA basis, the one-loop EFT galaxy bispectrum runs in about one second per cosmology and recovers the input cosmology of PTChallenge simulations up to k_max = 0.15 h/Mpc (monopole) and 0.12 h/Mpc (higher m...

  5. Debiasing inference in large-scale structure with non-flat volume measures

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

    A curvature-weighted, non-flat volume measure removes the leading-order marginalization bias in posterior means, recovering cosmological parameters in mocks to below 0.1 sigma.

  6. Effort: a fast and differentiable emulator for the Effective Field Theory of the Large Scale Structure of the Universe

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fast, differentiable emulator for EFTofLSS galaxy power spectra, validated against pybird on simulations and BOSS data, enables gradient-based MCMC inference.

  7. Cosmological constraints and standard sirens forecasts for non-dynamical dark energy in Horndeski gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Standard sirens from third-generation detectors could measure H0 to 0.21% in Extended Cuscuton models, but the forecast omits the modified GW luminosity distance.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Weinberg, M

    D. Weinberg, M. Mortonson, D. Eisenstein et al., Observational probes of cosmic acceleration , Physics Reports 530 (2013) 87

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , A&A 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby, Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models, ApJ 538 (2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Kaiser, Clustering in real space and in redshift space , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 227 (1987) 1

    N. Kaiser, Clustering in real space and in redshift space , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 227 (1987) 1

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gazta˜ naga and R. Scoccimarro, Large-scale structure of the Universe and cosmological perturbation theory , Phys. Rep. 367 (2002) 1 [ astro-ph/0112551]

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Desjacques, D

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

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Bianchi, M.M.S

    D. Bianchi, M.M.S. Hanif, A. Carnero Rosell, J. Lasker, A.J. Ross, M. Pinon et al., Characterization of DESI fiber assignment incompleteness effect on 2-point clustering and mitigation methods for DR1 analysis , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2411.12025 [ 2411.12025]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Jasche and B.D

    J. Jasche and B.D. Wandelt, Bayesian physical reconstruction of initial conditions from large-scale structure surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 432 (2013) 894 [1203.3639]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Eifler, E

    T. Eifler, E. Krause, S. Dodelson, A.R. Zentner, A.P. Hearin and N.Y. Gnedin, Accounting for baryonic effects in cosmic shear tomography: determining a minimal set of nuisance parameters using PCA , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 454 (2015) 2451 [ 1405.7423]...

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , Contemporary Physics 49 (2008) 71 [ 0803.4089]

    R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , Contemporary Physics 49 (2008) 71 [ 0803.4089]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2411.12021 [2411.12021]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , vol

    R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , vol. 49 (2008), 10.1080/00107510802066753

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Carrasco, M.P

    J.J.M. Carrasco, M.P. Hertzberg and L. Senatore, The effective field theory of cosmological large scale structures, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012 (2012) 82

    2012

  6. [14]

    Porto, L

    R.A. Porto, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, The Lagrangian-space Effective Field Theory of large scale structures, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (2014) 022. – 23 –

    2014

  7. [15]

    Perko, L

    A. Perko, L. Senatore, E. Jennings and R.H. Wechsler, Biased Tracers in Redshift Space in the EFT of Large-Scale Structure , arXiv e-prints (2016) arXiv:1610.09321

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Dawson, D.J

    K.S. Dawson, D.J. Schlegel, C.P. Ahn, S.F. Anderson, E. Aubourg, S. Bailey et al., The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey of SDSS-III , The Astronomical Journal 145 (2013) 10

    2013

  9. [17]

    d’Amico, J

    G. d’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, K. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang et al., The cosmological analysis of the SDSS/BOSS data from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (2020) 005

    2020

  10. [18]

    Ivanov, M

    M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological parameters from the BOSS galaxy power spectrum, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (2020) 042

    2020

  11. [19]

    Dawson, J.-P

    K.S. Dawson, J.-P. Kneib, W.J. Percival, S. Alam, F.D. Albareti, S.F. Anderson et al., The SDSS-IV Extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Overview and Early Data , The Astronomical Journal 151 (2016) 44

    2016

  12. [20]

    Simon, P

    T. Simon, P. Zhang and V. Poulin, Cosmological inference from the EFTofLSS: the eBOSS QSO full-shape analysis , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023 (2023) 041 [ 2210.14931]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chudaykin and M.M

    A. Chudaykin and M.M. Ivanov, Cosmological constraints from the power spectrum of eBOSS quasars, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 043518 [ 2210.17044]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Simon, P

    T. Simon, P. Zhang, V. Poulin and T.L. Smith, Consistency of effective field theory analyses of the BOSS power spectrum , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 123530 [ 2208.05929]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chudaykin, M.M

    A. Chudaykin, M.M. Ivanov and T. Nishimichi, On priors and scale cuts in EFT-based full-shape analyses , 2410.16358

  16. [24]

    E.B. Holm, L. Herold, T. Simon, E.G.M. Ferreira, S. Hannestad, V. Poulin et al., Bayesian and frequentist investigation of prior effects in EFT of LSS analyses of full-shape BOSS and eBOSS data, Physical Review D 108 (2023) 123514

    2023

  17. [25]

    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

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al., The DESI Experiment Part II: Instrument Design , arXiv e-prints (2016) arXiv:1611.00037

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Collaboration, B

    D. Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument , The Astronomical Journal 164 (2022) 207

    2022

  20. [28]

    D’Amico, Y

    G. D’Amico, Y. Donath, M. Lewandowski, L. Senatore and P. Zhang, The BOSS bispectrum analysis at one loop from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure , JCAP 05 (2024) 059 [2206.08327]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hadzhiyska, K

    B. Hadzhiyska, K. Wolz, D. Alonso, S. Azzoni, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, J. Ruiz-Zapatero et al., Cosmology with 6 parameters in the Stage-IV era: efficient marginalisation over nuisance parameters, The Open Journal of Astrophysics 6 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Raveri, W

    M. Raveri, W. Hu and T. Hoffman, Partially decoupling nuisance parameters: An application to weak lensing , Physical Review D 96 (2017) 103501

    2017

  23. [31]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Bonici, G. D’Amico, S. Paradiso and W.J. Percival, HOD-informed prior for EFT-based full-shape analyses of LSS , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2409.12937 [ 2409.12937]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhang et al., Enhancing DESI DR1 Full-Shape analyses using HOD-informed priors , 2504.10407

    H. Zhang et al., Enhancing DESI DR1 Full-Shape analyses using HOD-informed priors , 2504.10407

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ivanov, A

    M.M. Ivanov, A. Obuljen, C. Cuesta-Lazaro and M.W. Toomey, Full-shape analysis with simulation-based priors: Cosmological parameters and the structure growth anomaly , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 063548 [ 2409.10609]. – 24 –

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jeffreys, Theory of Probability, The Clarendon Press, Oxford (1939)

    H. Jeffreys, Theory of Probability, The Clarendon Press, Oxford (1939)

    1939

  27. [35]

    Donald-McCann, R

    J. Donald-McCann, R. Gsponer, R. Zhao, K. Koyama and F. Beutler, Analysis of unified galaxy power spectrum multipole measurements , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526 (2023) 3461 [ 2307.07475]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Schneider, R

    M.D. Schneider, R. Teyssier et al., Precision cosmology and the exploration of small-scale non-linearities in lss: a frequentist approach to nuisance parameters , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (2018) 013

    2018

  29. [37]

    Tucci and F

    B. Tucci and F. Schmidt, EFTofLSS meets simulation-based inference: σ 8 from biased tracers, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024 (2024) 063 [ 2310.03741]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. Chen, J. DeRose, R. Zhou, M. White, S. Ferraro, C. Blake et al., Not all lensing is low: An analysis of DESI ×DES using the Lagrangian Effective Theory of LSS , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2407.04795 [2407.04795]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hastie and R

    T. Hastie and R. Tibshirani, Generalized additive models, Statistical Science 1 (1986) 297

    1986

  32. [40]

    Raveri and W

    M. Raveri and W. Hu, Concordance and discordance in cosmology with generalized additive models, Physical Review D 101 (2020) 023518

    2020

  33. [41]

    Wood, Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R , Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, Taylor & Francis (2006)

    S. Wood, Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R , Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, Taylor & Francis (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Brummitt, H

    daniel serv´ en, C. Brummitt, H. Abedi and hlink, dswah/pygam: v0.8.0 , Oct., 2018. 10.5281/zenodo.1476122

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Cox and N

    D.R. Cox and N. Reid, Parameter orthogonality and approximate conditional inference , Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 49 (1987) 1

    1987

  36. [44]

    Jeffreys, Theory of Probability, Oxford University Press (1961)

    H. Jeffreys, Theory of Probability, Oxford University Press (1961)

    1961

  37. [45]

    Albert, Nuisance parameters and the use of exploratory graphical methods in a bayesian analysis, The American Statistician 43 (1989) 191

    J.H. Albert, Nuisance parameters and the use of exploratory graphical methods in a bayesian analysis, The American Statistician 43 (1989) 191

    1989

  38. [46]

    Tibshirani and L

    R. Tibshirani and L. Wasserman, Some aspects of the reparametrization of statistical models , The Canadian Journal of Statistics 22 (1994) 163

    1994

  39. [47]

    Papaspiliopoulos, G.O

    O. Papaspiliopoulos, G.O. Roberts and M. Sk¨ old, A general framework for the parametrization of hierarchical models, Statistical Science 22 (2007) 59

    2007

  40. [48]

    Christensen, G.O

    O.F. Christensen, G.O. Roberts and M. Sk¨ old, Robust markov chain monte carlo methods for spatial generalized linear mixed models , Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15 (2006) 1

    2006

  41. [49]

    D’Amico, L

    G. D’Amico, L. Senatore and P. Zhang, Limits on wCDM from the EFTofLSS with the PyBird code, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021) 006

    2021

  42. [50]

    D’Amico, L

    G. D’Amico, L. Senatore, P. Zhang and T. Nishimichi, Taming redshift-space distortion effects in the EFTofLSS and its application to data , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (2024) 037

    2024

  43. [51]

    Ivanov, O.H.E

    M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Zaldarriaga, T. Nischimichi and M. Takada, Cosmological constraints without nonlinear redshift-space distortions, Physical Review D 105 (2022) 043531

    2022

  44. [52]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, Redshift Space Distortions in the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structures, arXiv e-prints (2014) arXiv:1409.1225

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, The IR-resummed Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structures, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (2015) 13

    2015

  46. [54]

    Lewandowski and L

    M. Lewandowski and L. Senatore, An analytic implementation of the IR-resummation for the BAO peak, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (2020) 018. – 25 –

    2020

  47. [55]

    Wadekar and R

    D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro, Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 123517 [ 1910.02914]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Adelberger, A

    E.G. Adelberger, A. Garc ´ ıa, R.G.H. Robertson, K.A. Snover, A.B. Balantekin, K. Heeger et al., Solar fusion cross sections. II. The pp chain and CNO cycles , Reviews of Modern Physics 83 (2011) 195 [ 1004.2318]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Cooke, M

    R.J. Cooke, M. Pettini and C.C. Steidel, One Percent Determination of the Primordial Deuterium Abundance, ApJ 855 (2018) 102 [ 1710.11129]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bonici, G

    M. Bonici, G. D’Amico, J. Bel and C. Carbone, Effort: a fast and differentiable emulator for the Effective Field Theory of the Large Scale Structure of the Universe , 2501.04639

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bonici, F

    M. Bonici, F. Bianchini and J. Ruiz-Zapatero, Capse.jl: efficient and auto-differentiable CMB power spectra emulation, 2307.14339

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Karamanis, F

    M. Karamanis, F. Beutler, J.A. Peacock, D. Nabergoj and U. Seljak, Accelerating astronomical and cosmological inference with preconditioned monte carlo , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 516 (2022) 1644

    2022

  53. [61]

    Karamanis, D

    M. Karamanis, D. Nabergoj, F. Beutler, J.A. Peacock and U. Seljak, pocomc: A python package for accelerated bayesian inference in astronomy and cosmology , arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05660 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    DESI collaboration, Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument , 2503.14745

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Betancourt, A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo , arXiv e-prints (2017) arXiv:1701.02434 [1701.02434]

    M. Betancourt, A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo , arXiv e-prints (2017) arXiv:1701.02434 [1701.02434]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Campagne, F

    J.-E. Campagne, F. Lanusse, J. Zuntz, A. Boucaud, S. Casas, M. Karamanis et al., JAX-COSMO: An End-to-End Differentiable and GPU Accelerated Cosmology Library , Open J. Astrophys. 6 (2023) 1 [ 2302.05163]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Piras and A

    D. Piras and A. Spurio Mancini, CosmoPower-JAX: high-dimensional Bayesian inference with differentiable cosmological emulators, 2305.06347

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Ruiz-Zapatero, D

    J. Ruiz-Zapatero, D. Alonso, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, A. Nicola, A. Mootoovaloo, J.M. Sullivan et al., LimberJack.jl: auto-differentiable methods for angular power spectra analyses , 2310.08306

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Cagliari, E

    M.S. Cagliari, E. Castorina, M. Bonici and D. Bianchi, Optimal constraints on Primordial non-Gaussianity with the eBOSS DR16 quasars in Fourier space , JCAP 08 (2024) 036 [2309.15814]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Balkenhol, C

    L. Balkenhol, C. Trendafilova, K. Benabed and S. Galli, candl: cosmic microwave background analysis with a differentiable likelihood , Astron. Astrophys. 686 (2024) A10 [ 2401.13433]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Mootoovaloo, J

    A. Mootoovaloo, J. Ruiz-Zapatero, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa and D. Alonso,Assessment of gradient-based samplers in standard cosmological likelihoods, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 534 (2024) 1668 [ 2406.04725]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Giovanetti, M

    C. Giovanetti, M. Lisanti, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma and J.T. Ruderman, LINX: A Fast, Differentiable, and Extensible Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Package , 2408.14538

  63. [71]

    SPT-3G collaboration, Cosmology From CMB Lensing and Delensed EE Power Spectra Using 2019-2020 SPT-3G Polarization Data , 2411.06000

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Fjelde, K

    T.E. Fjelde, K. Xu, D. Widmann, M. Tarek, C. Pfiffer, M. Trapp et al., Turing.jl: a general-purpose probabilistic programming language, ACM Trans. Probab. Mach. Learn. (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    Clark and K

    N.J. Clark and K. Wells, Dynamic generalized additive models (dgams) for forecasting discrete ecological time series, Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14 (2023) 771

    2023

  66. [74]

    Volkmann, N

    A. Volkmann, N. Umlauf and S. Greven, Generalized Multivariate Functional Additive Mixed Models for Location, Scale, and Shape , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2407.20995 [ 2407.20995]. – 26 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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