Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Effort.jl is a neural-network emulator for one-loop galaxy clustering that reproduces pybird's BOSS posteriors while running on a laptop.

desk verdict A useful, well-engineered differentiable EFTofLSS emulator whose headline posterior-agreement claim still needs quantitative support; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04639 v1 pith:H3DYJKJV submitted 2025-01-08 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Marco Bonici , Guido D'Amico , Julien Bel , Carmelita Carbone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM PACS 98.80.-k98.65.-r
keywords EFTofLSSpowerspectrumemulatorgalaxyclusteringHamiltonianMonteCarloautomaticdifferentiationBayesianinferenceBOSSsurveylarge-scalestructure
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

Effort.jl is a fast, differentiable surrogate for the one-loop Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure (EFTofLSS) galaxy power spectrum multipoles. The paper's central claim is that it computes each multipole in about 15 microseconds and produces Bayesian posteriors that agree with the standard pybird pipeline on the PT-challenge simulations and BOSS data, with differences at the level of Monte Carlo noise. This matters because full-shape cosmological analyses that normally take days on a cluster can be run in roughly an hour on a laptop, making gradient-based sampling practical for the high-dimensional parameter spaces of upcoming surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the factorization $P_\ell(k;\theta)=\sum_{i,j} b_i b_j P_{ij,\ell}(k;\theta)+S_\ell(k)$: the neural network learns only the cosmology-dependent component kernels $P_{ij,\ell}$, while bias and counterterm parameters and the stochastic piece $S_\ell$ are handled analytically, exactly as in the reference EFT code. Around that factorization, the paper assembles three mechanisms: a preprocessing step that rescales outputs by $A(z)$ and $A^2(z)$ to remove the dominant amplitude dependence, with the growth factor either solved as a differentiable ODE or replaced by a symbolic-regression expression; explicit modeling of Alcock-Paczynski distortions with custom backward differentiation that exploits the sparsity of spline Jacobians, cutting gradient cost from about 100 ms to 200 $\mu$s; and a window-mask convolution implemented as an efficient array contraction with custom differentiation rules. This differentiability is what lets Hamiltonian Monte Carlo samplers explore the posterior, while the analytic bias factorization keeps the neural network small enough to train on a CPU.

What would settle it

Compute Gelman-Rubin and effective sample sizes from the saved Effort chains for the PT-challenge and BOSS runs; if any cosmological parameter has $\hat{R}>1.05$, or if rerunning with ten times more accepted steps shifts the mean by more than the reported Monte Carlo error, the claim that Effort reproduces pybird posteriors is not yet demonstrated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper establishes that a carefully designed emulator can replace direct evaluation of the one-loop EFTofLSS power spectrum in full Bayesian inference without changing the inferred cosmology. The key demonstration is that posterior distributions sampled with Effort.jl and Hamiltonian Monte Carlo overlap with pybird posteriors from standard Metropolis-Hastings runs, on both the PT-challenge mock galaxy catalogs and the four BOSS power-spectrum multipoles; the agreement is described as consistent with Monte Carlo noise. The runtime drops to about ten minutes for the PT-challenge and just over an hour for BOSS on a laptop. Accuracy tests also show that physics-based rescaling of the emulator outputs by the amplitude factor $A(z)=A_s D^2(z)$, with loop terms scaled by $A^2(z)$, reduces emulation residuals far more effectively than simply enlarging the training set.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the short Effort chains (2,000 accepted NUTS steps per chain) and the pybird chains have converged; the paper shows no convergence diagnostics, so if either set has not mixed, the claimed agreement could be an artifact of unfinished sampling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Full-shape EFTofLSS analyses of BOSS-like data become feasible on a laptop, with wall-clock time of about an hour rather than days.
  • Gradient-based samplers such as NUTS and microcanonical Hamiltonian Monte Carlo become practical for EFT parameter inference, including scenarios where analytical marginalization of nuisance parameters is not possible.
  • Emulators with analytic bias handling and physics-based rescaling can reach high accuracy with small networks, lowering training cost and hardware requirements relative to larger black-box models.
  • Because the emulator is differentiable and fast, it can be combined with other differentiable surrogates for joint multi-probe cosmological analyses.
  • The modular design allows the same workflow to be retrained on other one-loop EFT codes, extending the speedup to different theory implementations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same factorization is a natural template for emulating bispectrum loop terms, since Eq. (2.1) separates bias parameters from cosmology-dependent kernels in the same way a bispectrum likelihood would require; the paper does not claim this extension.
  • Beyond the paper, the symbolic-regression replacement of the growth-factor ODE suggests a general recipe for any differentiable pipeline: replace a continuous preprocessing bottleneck with a closed-form expression, accepting a small accuracy cost for portability; applying this to the AP mapping would remove the remaining interpolation bottleneck.
  • Beyond the paper, a sharper validation than visual contour overlap would be a quantitative comparison of Effort and pybird posterior means and credible intervals at substantially longer chain lengths, which would turn the Monte-Carlo-noise claim into a measured number.
  • Beyond the paper, the emulator's error behavior outside the validated range ($k_{\rm max}$ up to roughly $0.12$-$0.23\,h/{\rm Mpc}$) is untested, so a natural stress test is to push to higher $k_{\rm max}$ on N-body mocks and map where sub-percent accuracy degrades.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents Effort.jl, a neural-network emulator for the one-loop EFTofLSS galaxy power spectrum multipoles, integrated with automatic differentiation and the Turing.jl probabilistic programming framework. The emulator treats bias and counterterm parameters analytically, uses a physics-motivated rescaling by AsD^2(z) as preprocessing, and implements the Alcock-Paczynski effect and window-mask convolution with custom differentiation rules. The authors validate the emulator by comparing Bayesian posteriors obtained with Effort.jl plus NUTS/MCHMC against pybird with MontePython on the PT-challenge simulations and on BOSS data, reporting sub-percent emulator residuals and wall-clock reductions from days or hours to about ten minutes or one hour on a laptop. The conclusion is that Effort.jl reproduces pybird posteriors with deviations compatible with Monte Carlo noise.

Significance. If the validation holds, Effort.jl is a useful community resource: it is publicly released, differentiable, and fast enough to enable gradient-based sampling for full-shape EFTofLSS analyses of DESI and Euclid data. The paper's technical contributions are real: the preprocessing rescaling demonstrably improves emulator accuracy (Sec. 4.1, Figs. 2 and 3), the custom backward rules for spline interpolation and window convolution solve a genuine AD bottleneck (Sec. 2.4.2), and the symbolic-regression growth factor reduces the preprocessing overhead. The code availability and the careful treatment of observational effects are strengths. The central weakness is that the headline posterior-agreement claim is supported only by overlaid contour plots, with no quantitative discrepancy metrics or convergence diagnostics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Figs. 4 and 5] The abstract's central claim—'deviations compatible with MonteCarlo noise'—is not quantitatively demonstrated. The evidence is limited to overlaid triangle plots, without per-parameter posterior means and errors, shifts in units of standard deviation, or any metric such as the maximum difference in contours. Given that the chains use only 2,000 accepted NUTS steps per chain (Sec. 4.2), statistical noise is nontrivial, and a small but real emulator bias (e.g., 0.1–1% in P(k), which is within the reported residual range of Fig. 2) could be masked. The paper should add quantitative posterior comparison statistics and, ideally, a statement of whether the observed differences are within the expected Monte Carlo scatter.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, PT-challenge] The PT-challenge validation is not auditable in its current form: the dedicated 3-parameter emulator is not released, axis ticks and labels are removed from Fig. 4, and no numerical summary of the posteriors is provided. While the blinding protocol explains the withheld cosmology, it does not prevent reporting blinded summary statistics (for instance, differences in posterior means relative to the posterior width under a fixed labeling convention). Without such numbers, 'excellent agreement' for the largest-volume and most stringent test remains an assertion rather than a demonstrable result.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, performance claims] The performance comparison is incomplete. The text reports ESS/s values for Effort.jl (1.2 for NUTS and 5.1 for MCHMC on the PT-challenge; 0.4 and 2.4 on BOSS) and states that pybird required 'several hours' or 'a few days' on a cluster, but also notes that 'a direct comparison of sampling efficiency with pybird was not made.' Without a like-for-like comparison on the same platform, with the same number of chains and the same convergence criteria, the stated orders-of-magnitude improvement is not established. The runtime claims should be either substantiated with a controlled benchmark or softened.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, convergence diagnostics] The manuscript does not report any convergence diagnostics for the Effort.jl chains, such as Gelman-Rubin R-hat, effective sample size (ESS), or trace plots. Given that 2,000 accepted NUTS steps per chain may not guarantee convergence for a high-dimensional EFT likelihood, the absence of such diagnostics makes it difficult to rule out the possibility that the agreement with pybird is partly due to chains that have not yet mixed. The authors should report R-hat and ESS for all parameters and state clearly how convergence was assessed.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The phrase 'via the Metropolis-Hastings sampler' for pybird is imprecise; MontePython may use MH or other samplers, and the paper itself does not specify the exact sampler. Clarify the comparison setup.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] There is a typo in 'conjuction' and in Sec. 2.3 'the dataset as been split' should read 'has been split'.
  3. [Sec. 2.3] The sentence beginning 'This rescaling is particularly effective for extended models' repeats the phrase 'which primarily influence the amplitude of the linear matter power spectrum' twice; remove the duplicate.
  4. [Sec. 2.4.2] In Eq. (2.11), the definitions of q_parallel and q_perp are dimensionally inconsistent as written: q_parallel is given as DA(z)H(z=0) divided by a reference quantity, which is dimensionless, while q_perp is written as a ratio of Hubble parameters; please check the intended factors of H(z) and H(0) in the notation (see [68, 69]).
  5. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 3] The text states that the symbolic growth factor is accurate to 0.1% for 99.87% of the validation dataset, but the maximum error over the remaining 0.13% is not reported; a worst-case error bound would be more informative for downstream inference.
  6. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 4] The removal of axis ticks and labels in Fig. 4 makes it impossible for the reader to judge the scale of any differences; consider reporting the same information in a blinded table or in a separate figure with a private labeling scheme.
  7. [Sec. 5] The phrase 'we are actively working on ajax-based version' appears to be a typo for 'a JAX-based version'; also, 'see thus advantageous' should read 'find it advantageous'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the posterior agreement is a surrogate-fidelity check against an independent EFTofLSS implementation on external data, not a self-derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central validation claim is that Effort.jl reproduces pybird's EFTofLSS posteriors to Monte-Carlo noise. This is a numerical consistency check between a neural-network surrogate and an existing implementation of the same one-loop EFTofLSS model, applied to external data (PT-challenge simulations and BOSS). The emulator is trained on outputs of the same theoretical model, so agreement is exactly the appropriate fidelity test; no physics result is derived from the emulator. The model itself is taken from the standard EFTofLSS literature (Appendix A), and the benchmark pybird is a widely used independent code even though some authors overlap. The preprocessing rescaling (Sec. 2.3) is validated in-paper in Fig. 2; the citation to [14] is a supporting reference, not the load-bearing argument. The BOSS and PT-challenge likelihoods and priors come from [82] and [51], which are external analyses; they provide data and settings, not the conclusion. Concerns about withheld PT-challenge emulators, omitted axis ticks, and absent convergence diagnostics are auditability and validation-quality issues, not circularity: they do not make the claimed agreement equivalent to the fit by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain is used to forbid alternatives. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper is best characterized as having no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. The free parameters are the trained NN weights and the symbolic regression coefficients, both internal to the emulator's construction; they are not cosmological parameters inferred from data. The axioms are the standard EFTofLSS and background cosmology choices that define the model being emulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Neural network weights (5 layers x 64 neurons) = Trained on 60,000 samples; not released for PT-challenge
    These determine the emulator's accuracy and are fitted to training data generated from the EFTofLSS model. They are not physical parameters, but the central claim of accuracy depends on them.
  • Symbolic regression expression for growth factor D(z) = Not provided in the paper
    Used to replace the ODE solution for D(z) to speed up preprocessing; accurate to 0.1% for 99.87% of the validation set. It is a fitted closed-form approximation to the ODE solution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The one-loop EFTofLSS expression in Eq. (A.1), including bias, counterterms and stochastic terms, is the correct model for galaxy power spectrum multipoles.
    The entire emulator is built to reproduce this model; the paper does not test alternative bias models or higher-loop corrections.
  • domain assumption The background cosmology is assumed to be flat w0wa CDM with massive neutrinos, with the Hubble rate given by Eq. (2.3) and neutrino contribution by Eq. (2.4).
    The training set and emulator are restricted to this model space (parameters in Table 1).
  • domain assumption The Alcock-Paczynski transformation of Eqs. (2.11)-(2.13) and the window mask convolution of Section 2.4.3 are the correct observational corrections.
    These are standard in LSS analyses and follow the references cited, but the emulator's accuracy depends on their implementation.
  • standard math The factorization of bias parameters in Eq. (2.1) is exact at one loop.
    This is the standard EFTofLSS factorization used by pybird; no derivation is given in the paper, but it is a well-established result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effort: a fast and differentiable emulator for the Effective Field Theory of the Large Scale Structure of the Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3DYJKJV

@misc{pith2026250104639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effort: a fast and differentiable emulator for the Effective Field Theory of the Large Scale Structure of the Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3DYJKJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04639}
}
read the original abstract

We present the official release of the EFfective Field theORy surrogaTe (Effort), a novel and efficient emulator designed for the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure (EFTofLSS). This tool combines state-of-the-art numerical methods and clever preprocessing strategies to achieve exceptional computational performance without sacrificing accuracy. To validate the emulator reliability, we compare Bayesian posteriors sampled using Effort via Hamiltonian MonteCarlo methods to the ones sampled using the widely-used pybird code, via the Metropolis-Hastings sampler. On a large-volume set of simulations, and on the BOSS dataset, the comparison confirms excellent agreement, with deviations compatible with MonteCarlo noise. Looking ahead, Effort is poised to analyze next-generation cosmological datasets and to support joint analyses with complementary tools.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    DESI collaboration, The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, 1611.00036

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    DESI collaboration, Overview of the Instrumentation for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, Astron. J. 164 (2022) 207 [2205.10939]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    DESI collaboration, DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements, 2411.12022

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Euclid collaboration, Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission, 2405.13491

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Jimenez, L

    R. Jimenez, L. Verde, H. Peiris and A. Kosowsky,Fast cosmological parameter estimation from microwave background temperature and polarization power spectra, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 023005 [astro-ph/0404237]

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Fendt and B.D

    W.A. Fendt and B.D. Wandelt,Pico: Parameters for the Impatient Cosmologist, Astrophys. J. 654 (2006) 2 [astro-ph/0606709]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    T. Auld, M. Bridges, M.P. Hobson and S.F. Gull,Fast cosmological parameter estimation using neural networks, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.376 (2007) L11 [astro-ph/0608174]. – 20 –

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models, Astrophys. J. 538 (2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    arXiv 2000

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes, JCAP 07 (2011) 034 [1104.2933]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Albers, C

    J. Albers, C. Fidler, J. Lesgourgues, N. Schöneberg and J. Torrado,CosmicNet. Part I. Physics-driven implementation of neural networks within Einstein-Boltzmann Solvers, JCAP 09 (2019) 028 [1907.05764]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Spurio Mancini, D

    A. Spurio Mancini, D. Piras, J. Alsing, B. Joachimi and M.P. Hobson,CosmoPower: emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511 (2022) 1771 [2106.03846]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Nygaard, E.B

    A. Nygaard, E.B. Holm, S. Hannestad and T. Tram,CONNECT: a neural network based framework for emulating cosmological observables and cosmological parameter inference, JCAP 05 (2023) 025 [2205.15726]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Günther, J

    S. Günther, J. Lesgourgues, G. Samaras, N. Schöneberg, F. Stadtmann, C. Fidler et al., CosmicNet II: emulating extended cosmologies with efficient and accurate neural networks, JCAP 11 (2022) 035 [2207.05707]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bonici, F

    M. Bonici, F. Bianchini and J. Ruiz-Zapatero,Capse.jl: efficient and auto-differentiable CMB power spectra emulation, The Open Journal of Astrophysics7 (2024) 10 [2307.14339]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Mootoovaloo, A.H

    A. Mootoovaloo, A.H. Jaffe, A.F. Heavens and F. Leclercq,Kernel-based emulator for the 3D matter power spectrum from CLASS, Astron. Comput. 38 (2022) 100508 [2105.02256]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Donald-McCann, F

    J. Donald-McCann, F. Beutler, K. Koyama and M. Karamanis,matryoshka: halo model emulator for the galaxy power spectrum, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511 (2022) 3768 [2109.15236]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aricò, R.E

    G. Aricò, R.E. Angulo and M. Zennaro,Accelerating Large-Scale-Structure data analyses by emulating Boltzmann solvers and Lagrangian Perturbation Theory, 2104.14568

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bartlett, L

    D.J. Bartlett, L. Kammerer, G. Kronberger, H. Desmond, P.G. Ferreira, B.D. Wandelt et al., A precise symbolic emulator of the linear matter power spectrum, Astron. Astrophys.686 (2024) A209 [2311.15865]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bakx, N.E

    T. Bakx, N.E. Chisari and Z. Vlah,COBRA: Optimal Factorization of Cosmological Observables, 2407.04660

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Eggemeier, B

    A. Eggemeier, B. Camacho-Quevedo, A. Pezzotta, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro and A.G. Sánchez,COMET: Clustering observables modelled by emulated perturbation theory, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.519 (2022) 2962 [2208.01070]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Donald-McCann, K

    J. Donald-McCann, K. Koyama and F. Beutler,matryoshka II: accelerating effective field theory analyses of the galaxy power spectrum, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518 (2022) 3106 [2202.07557]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Trusov, P

    S. Trusov, P. Zarrouk and S. Cole,Neural Network-based model of galaxy power spectrum: Fast full-shape galaxy power spectrum analysis, 2403.20093

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Manrique-Yus and E

    A. Manrique-Yus and E. Sellentin,Euclid-era cosmology for everyone: neural net assisted MCMC sampling for the joint 3× 2 likelihood, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491 (2020) 2655 [1907.05881]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mootoovaloo, A.F

    A. Mootoovaloo, A.F. Heavens, A.H. Jaffe and F. Leclercq,Parameter Inference for Weak Lensing using Gaussian Processes and MOPED, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497 (2020) 2213 [2005.06551]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bonici, L

    M. Bonici, L. Biggio, C. Carbone and L. Guzzo,Fast emulation of two-point angular statistics for photometric galaxy surveys, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531 (2024) 4203 [2206.14208]. – 21 –

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C.-H. To, E. Rozo, E. Krause, H.-Y. Wu, R.H. Wechsler and A.N. Salcedo,LINNA: Likelihood Inference Neural Network Accelerator, JCAP 01 (2023) 016 [2203.05583]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zhong, E

    K. Zhong, E. Saraivanov, J. Caputi, V. Miranda, S.S. Boruah, T. Eifler et al.,Attention-based Neural Network Emulators for Multi-Probe Data Vectors Part I: Forecasting the Growth-Geometry split, 2402.17716

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Saraivanov, K

    E. Saraivanov, K. Zhong, V. Miranda, S.S. Boruah, T. Eifler and E. Krause,Attention-Based Neural Network Emulators for Multi-Probe Data Vectors Part II: Assessing Tension Metrics, 2403.12337

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    LSST Dark Energy Science collaboration, Machine Learning LSST 3x2pt analyses – forecasting the impact of systematics on cosmological constraints using neural networks, 2403.11797

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hoffman and A

    M.D. Hoffman and A. Gelman,The no-u-turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in hamiltonian monte carlo, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Betancourt,A conceptual introduction to hamiltonian monte carlo, 2018

    M. Betancourt,A conceptual introduction to hamiltonian monte carlo, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Millea, E

    M. Millea, E. Anderes and B.D. Wandelt,Sampling-based inference of the primordial CMB and gravitational lensing, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 123542 [2002.00965]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. Li, L. Lu, C. Modi, D. Jamieson, Y. Zhang, Y. Feng et al.,pmwd: A Differentiable Cosmological Particle-Mesh N-body Library, 2211.09958

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    Piras and A

    D. Piras and A. Spurio Mancini,CosmoPower-JAX: high-dimensional Bayesian inference with differentiable cosmological emulators, The Open Journal of Astrophysics6 (2023) 20 [2305.06347]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    O. Hahn, F. List and N. Porqueres,DISCO-DJ I: a differentiable Einstein-Boltzmann solver for cosmology, JCAP 06 (2024) 063 [2311.03291]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    Ruiz-Zapatero, D

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

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Mootoovaloo, J

    A. Mootoovaloo, J. Ruiz-Zapatero, C. García-García and D. Alonso,Assessment of Gradient-Based Samplers in Standard Cosmological Likelihoods, 2406.04725

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

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

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    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, 2409.12937

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Griewank and A

    A. Griewank and A. Walther,Evaluating Derivatives: Principles and Techniques of Algorithmic Differentiation, Second Edition, Other Titles in Applied Mathematics, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Blondel and V

    M. Blondel and V. Roulet,The Elements of Differentiable Programming, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2403.14606 [2403.14606]. – 22 –

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Scardapane,Alice’s Adventures in a Differentiable Wonderland – Volume I, A Tour of the Land, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.17625 [2404.17625]

    S. Scardapane,Alice’s Adventures in a Differentiable Wonderland – Volume I, A Tour of the Land, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.17625 [2404.17625]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    G. Arya, M. Schauer, F. Schäfer and C. Rackauckas,Automatic Differentiation of Programs with Discrete Randomness, arXiv e-prints (2022) arXiv:2210.08572 [2210.08572]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Horowitz, C

    B. Horowitz, C. Hahn, F. Lanusse, C. Modi and S. Ferraro,Differentiable stochastic halo occupation distribution, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529 (2024) 2473 [2211.03852]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jurling and J.R

    A.S. Jurling and J.R. Fienup,Applications of algorithmic differentiation to phase retrieval algorithms, Journal of the Optical Society of America A31 (2014) 1348

    2014

  41. [49]

    DeRose, S.-F

    J. DeRose, S.-F. Chen, M. White and N. Kokron,Neural network acceleration of large-scale structure theory calculations, JCAP 04 (2022) 056 [2112.05889]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski and V.B. Shah,Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    Nishimichi, G

    T. Nishimichi, G. D’Amico, M.M. Ivanov, L. Senatore, M. Simonović, M. Takada et al., Blinded challenge for precision cosmology with large-scale structure: results from effective field theory for the redshift-space galaxy power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 123541 [2003.08277]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    BOSS collaboration, The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: RSD measurement from the LOS-dependent power spectrum of DR12 BOSS galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.460 (2016) 4188 [1509.06386]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski and V.B. Shah,Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM Review 59 (2017) 65 [https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671]

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,The IR-resummed Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structures, JCAP 02 (2015) 013 [1404.5954]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Baldauf, M

    T. Baldauf, M. Mirbabayi, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga,Equivalence Principle and the Baryon Acoustic Peak, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 043514 [1504.04366]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Sanchez, A.N

    A.G. Sanchez, A.N. Ruiz, J.G. Jara and N.D. Padilla,Evolution mapping: a new approach to describe matter clustering in the non-linear regime, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514 (2022) 5673 [2108.12710]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ioffe and C

    S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy,Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift, arXiv e-prints (2015) arXiv:1502.03167 [1502.03167]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zennaro, J

    M. Zennaro, J. Bel, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, C. Carbone, E. Sefusatti and L. Guzzo,Initial Conditions for Accurate N-Body Simulations of Massive Neutrino Cosmologies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.466 (2017) 3244 [1605.05283]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bayer, A

    A.E. Bayer, A. Banerjee and Y. Feng,A fast particle-mesh simulation of non-linear cosmological structure formation with massive neutrinos, JCAP 01 (2021) 016 [2007.13394]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10 (2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

    2001 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    2003 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Froustey, C

    J. Froustey, C. Pitrou and M.C. Volpe,Neutrino decoupling including flavour oscillations and primordial nucleosynthesis, JCAP 12 (2020) 015 [2008.01074]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bennett, G

    J.J. Bennett, G. Buldgen, P.F. De Salas, M. Drewes, S. Gariazzo, S. Pastor et al.,Towards a precision calculation ofNeff in the Standard Model II: Neutrino decoupling in the presence of flavour oscillations and finite-temperature QED, JCAP 04 (2021) 073 [2012.02726]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    LSST Dark Energy Science collaboration, Core Cosmology Library: Precision Cosmological Predictions for LSST, Astrophys. J. Suppl.242 (2019) 2 [1812.05995]. – 23 –

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Tsitouras,Runge–kutta pairs of order 5(4) satisfying only the first column simplifying assumption, Computers & Mathematics with Applications62 (2011) 770

    C. Tsitouras,Runge–kutta pairs of order 5(4) satisfying only the first column simplifying assumption, Computers & Mathematics with Applications62 (2011) 770

    2011

  58. [66]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie,DifferentialEquations.jl–a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in Julia, Journal of Open Research Software5 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Alcock and B

    C. Alcock and B. Paczynski,An evolution free test for non-zero cosmological constant, Nature 281 (1979) 358

    1979

  60. [68]

    D’Amico, L

    G. D’Amico, L. Senatore and P. Zhang,Limits on wCDM from the EFTofLSS with the PyBird code, JCAP 01 (2021) 006 [2003.07956]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Ivanov, M

    M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological Parameters from the BOSS Galaxy Power Spectrum, JCAP 05 (2020) 042 [1909.05277]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Beutler, E

    F. Beutler, E. Castorina and P. Zhang,Interpreting measurements of the anisotropic galaxy power spectrum, JCAP 03 (2019) 040 [1810.05051]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Abbott, D

    M. Abbott, D. Aluthge, N3N5, V. Puri, C. Elrod, S. Schaub et al.,mcabbott/tullio.jl: v0.3.7, Oct., 2023. 10.5281/zenodo.10035615

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    H. Ge, K. Xu and Z. Ghahramani,Turing: a language for flexible probabilistic inference, in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2018, 9-11 April 2018, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain, pp. 1682–1690, 2018, http://proceedings...

    2018

  65. [73]

    Robnik and U

    J. Robnik and U. Seljak,Fluctuation without dissipation: Microcanonical Langevin Monte Carlo, 2303.18221

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Robnik, G.B

    J. Robnik, G.B. De Luca, E. Silverstein and U. Seljak,Microcanonical Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, 2212.08549

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bayer, U

    A.E. Bayer, U. Seljak and C. Modi,Field-Level Inference with Microcanonical Langevin Monte Carlo, in40th International Conference on Machine Learning, 7, 2023 [2307.09504]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Cybenko,Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems2 (1989) 303

    G.V. Cybenko,Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems2 (1989) 303

    1989

  69. [77]

    Cranmer,Interpretable Machine Learning for Science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2305.01582 [2305.01582]

    M. Cranmer,Interpretable Machine Learning for Science with PySR and SymbolicRegression.jl, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2305.01582 [2305.01582]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bartlett, B.D

    D.J. Bartlett, B.D. Wandelt, M. Zennaro, P.G. Ferreira and H. Desmond,SYREN-HALOFIT: A fast, interpretable, high-precision formula for theΛCDM nonlinear matter power spectrum, Astron. Astrophys.686 (2024) A150 [2402.17492]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Sui, D.J

    C. Sui, D.J. Bartlett, S. Pandey, H. Desmond, P.G. Ferreira and B.D. Wandelt,syren-new: Precise formulae for the linear and nonlinear matter power spectra with massive neutrinos and dynamical dark energy, 2410.14623

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    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]

    2013 arXiv

  73. [81]

    BOSS collaboration, The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470 (2017) 2617 [1607.03155]

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

    Brinckmann and J

    T. Brinckmann and J. Lesgourgues,MontePython 3: boosted MCMC sampler and other features, Phys. Dark Univ.24 (2019) 100260 [1804.07261]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    S. Axen, D. Karrasch, J. Burton, M. Hauru and P. Yong,mlcolab/pathfinder.jl: v0.9.8, Dec.,

  77. [85]

    Ivanov, C

    M.M. Ivanov, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, S. Mishra-Sharma, A. Obuljen and M.W. Toomey,Full-shape analysis with simulation-based priors: Constraints on single field inflation from BOSS, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 063538 [2402.13310]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Paradiso, M

    S. Paradiso, M. Bonici, M. Chen, W.J. Percival, G. D’Amico, H. Zhang et al.,Reducing nuisance prior sensitivity via non-linear reparameterization, with application to EFT analyses of large-scale structure, 2412.03503

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Akitsu,Mapping the galaxy-halo connection to the galaxy bias: implication to the HOD-informed prior, 2410.08998

    K. Akitsu,Mapping the galaxy-halo connection to the galaxy bias: implication to the HOD-informed prior, 2410.08998

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    Shiferaw, N

    M. Shiferaw, N. Kokron and R.H. Wechsler,How do uncertainties in galaxy formation physics impact field-level galaxy bias?, 2412.06886

  81. [89]

    Chiarenza, M

    S. Chiarenza, M. Bonici, W. Percival and M. White,BLAST: Beyond Limber Angular power Spectra Toolkit. A fast and efficient algorithm for 3x2 pt analysis, The Open Journal of Astrophysics 7 (2024) 112 [2410.03632]

    2024

  82. [90]

    Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field., ApJ 117 (1953) 134

    D.N. Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field., ApJ 117 (1953) 134

    1953

  83. [91]

    X. Fang, E. Krause, T. Eifler and N. MacCrann,Beyond Limber: Efficient computation of angular power spectra for galaxy clustering and weak lensing, JCAP 05 (2020) 010 [1911.11947]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, E. Castorina and M. White,Redshift-Space Distortions in Lagrangian Perturbation Theory, JCAP 03 (2021) 100 [2012.04636]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Chudaykin, M.M

    A. Chudaykin, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox and M. Simonović,Nonlinear perturbation theory extension of the Boltzmann code CLASS, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 063533 [2004.10607]

    2020 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Noriega, A

    H.E. Noriega, A. Aviles, S. Fromenteau and M. Vargas-Magaña,Fast computation of non-linear power spectrum in cosmologies with massive neutrinos, JCAP 11 (2022) 038 [2208.02791]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Linde, A

    D. Linde, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, C. Radermacher, S. Casas and J. Lesgourgues, CLASS-OneLoop: accurate and unbiased inference from spectroscopic galaxy surveys, JCAP 07 (2024) 068 [2402.09778]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    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

  89. [97]

    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 Physics2020 (2020) 005

    2020

  90. [98]

    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

  91. [99]

    Ivanov, O.H.E

    M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, M. Simonović, M. Zaldarriaga, T. Nischimichi and M. Takada, Cosmological constraints without nonlinear redshift-space distortions, Physical Review D105 (2022) 043531

    2022

  92. [100]

    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

  93. [101]

    Lewandowski and L

    M. Lewandowski and L. Senatore,An analytic implementation of the IR-resummation for the BAO peak, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020 (2020) 018. – 25 –

    2020

  94. [2024]

    10.5281/zenodo.14576747. – 24 –

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.