Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Detecting Modeling Bias with Continuous Time Flow Models on Weak Lensing Maps

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that field-level probability densities from continuous-time flow models detect unmodeled baryonic effects in weak-lensing maps far better than compressed feature statistics or normalizing-flow densities, and that the same…

desk verdict Convincing demonstration that CTFM field-level density beats feature-level baselines for OoD detection, but the NF field-level claim rests on an unmeasured baseline and the density estimator's error budget on WL maps is unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00632 v2 pith:NL3FGO4L submitted 2025-05-01 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Kangning Diao , Biwei Dai , Uros Seljak This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords weaklensingout-of-distributiondetectionsimulation-basedinferencecontinuous-timeflowmodelsmatchingnormalizingflowsbaryoniceffectsforwardmodelvalidation
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 reframes forward-model validation as a null test: does an observed weak-lensing map look like a typical draw from the simulator? It uses the estimated log-probability-density as the test statistic and asks how well different density estimators can flag maps that include unmodeled baryonic physics. The central result is that field-level densities from continuous-time flow models, specifically diffusion and optimal-transport flow matching, separate in-distribution from out-of-distribution maps far better than feature-level densities from scattering-transform or CNN compressors paired with normalizing flows, or a field-level normalizing flow. The best continuous-time flow variant reaches AUROC 0.87 at survey-like noise and 0.95 at lower noise, and perfectly separates all out-of-distribution maps when the survey area reaches 60 square degrees. The same statistic also picks the correct noise level among candidate forward models, which matters because upcoming surveys need a generic way to catch unknown systematics before trusting simulation-based inference on field-level data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the continuous-time flow model density estimator: a generative model that transports the data distribution to a standard Gaussian through an ordinary differential equation, then recovers the density of any sample by integrating the divergence of the vector field along the flow. The divergence is estimated with a stochastic trace estimator, and the neural vector field is trained either as a diffusion score or as optimal-transport flow matching with the straight path. This machinery matters because it yields a field-level log-density directly, without compressing the map into a few hundred features, and because its learned dynamics are smoother than a discrete normalizing flow, which the paper shows avoids the inductive bias that assigns high likelihood to spatially distorted out-of-distribution maps.

What would settle it

On Gaussian random fields, compare the continuous-time flow density estimate against the analytic log-density using a higher-order integrator and more stochastic trace samples; if the residual scatter does not shrink well below the in-distribution versus out-of-distribution log-density separation measured on weak-lensing maps, then part of the reported AUROC could be estimator noise. Alternatively, compute densities for dark-matter-only maps generated by an independent simulation pipeline with different seeds or numerical settings: if a large fraction are flagged as out-of-distribution, the test is detecting numerical differences rather than modeling bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the field-level log-density computed by integrating a continuous-time flow ordinary differential equation is a sensitive, generic out-of-distribution statistic for weak-lensing forward-model validation. The test setup treats dark-matter-only convergence maps as in-distribution and maps post-processed with the Baryon Correction Model as the out-of-distribution set at fixed cosmology. At 128-by-128 maps with survey-like shape noise, optimal transport flow matching reaches AUROC 0.87 and the diffusion model 0.85, while feature-level scattering-transform and CNN compressors combined with normalizing flows reach only 0.73 and 0.54, and a field-level normalizing flow reaches roughly 0.65. At lower noise the continuous-time flow variants reach AUROC 0.95 and 0.94, and enlarging the survey area to 60 square degrees makes detection perfect. The paper also claims that this density statistic selects the correct model among candidates differing only in noise level, and that continuous-time flow models avoid the spatial inductive bias that makes a normalizing flow assign higher likelihood to smoothed, scaled, or masked out-of-distribution maps.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate of log-density obtained by Euler integration of the flow ODE with 1000 steps and the stochastic trace estimator is accurate and stable enough that measured density differences reflect genuine model mismatch rather than estimator noise; the paper validates this on Gaussian random fields, where scatter around the analytic log-density is about 6, and then assumes the same reliability for non-Gaussian weak-lensing maps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Field-level density from continuous-time flow models is a practical null test for forward-model consistency in simulation-based inference, and it should be used before trusting posteriors from field-level analyses.
  • Increasing survey area sharpens the test: at 60 square degrees the method separates all baryon-corrected maps from dark-matter-only maps at shape noise of 30 galaxies per square arcminute.
  • The same log-density deviation can rank competing forward models: the optimal-transport flow matching model selected the correct shape-noise level for all mock maps, suggesting that disagreement between simulations can be adjudicated by typical-set likelihood.
  • Higher resolution helps more than larger pixel size: raising resolution from 1.6 to 0.8 arcmin at fixed area raised AUROC from 0.87 to 0.94.
  • Normalizing-flow inductive bias can invert out-of-distribution rankings, so field-level continuous-time flow densities are preferable for searching unknown systematics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would apply the same density estimator to maps with correlated observational systematics such as PSF anisotropy, masking, or selection effects; the paper only uses Gaussian pixel noise, and correlated noise is likely to reduce but not erase the advantage.
  • Because the method computes a full field-level likelihood, it should transfer to other cosmological fields, such as 21-cm intensity maps, CMB lensing, or galaxy redshift-space fields, wherever a forward model can generate training maps.
  • Combining the integrated log-density with the norm of the score as a second typicality statistic could strengthen detection when the ODE integral has high variance; the paper does not test this combination.
  • The model-selection metric could be turned into a calibration test by injecting baryon parameters with known strength and measuring empirical false positive rates, giving a way to set the detection threshold without knowing the true anomaly in advance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper recasts forward-model validation in cosmology as an out-of-distribution (OoD) detection problem, using the estimated probability density of the data as the test statistic. The authors compare feature-level density estimators (scattering-transform coefficients or CNN summaries combined with RealNVP normalizing flows) against field-level estimators based on continuous-time flow models (CTFM): a diffusion model and an optimal-transport flow-matching (OTFM) model. On simulated weak-lensing convergence maps, with dark-matter-only maps as in-distribution and baryon-corrected (BCM) maps as OoD, they report that CTFM field-level log-density estimates give substantially higher AUROC than the feature-level methods, even though the feature-level methods are conditioned on the true cosmology. They also compare against a field-level normalizing-flow baseline (MultiscaleFlow) from prior work, test performance across several cosmologies, use the density deviation for model selection, and examine the effect of resolution and survey area. A validation of OTFM density estimates on Gaussian random fields is presented in Section 3.1.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a practical and generic null test for checking whether an observed high-dimensional field is consistent with a forward model, which is directly relevant to simulation-based inference for upcoming weak-lensing surveys. The design of the comparison is commendable in one respect: feature-level methods are given the true cosmology, while field-level CTFM models are trained unconditionally, so the reported advantage is not an artifact of giving the field-level methods extra information. The GRF validation is a useful sanity check, and the model-selection and resolution/area experiments broaden the applicability. However, the empirical AUROC comparisons lack uncertainty quantification, and the comparison against MultiscaleFlow relies on an externally reported value rather than a same-protocol measurement. These issues currently limit the strength of the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Eq. (2.8)] The log-density estimator in Eq. (2.8) is validated only on Gaussian random fields, where the authors report a residual scatter of about 6 in log p; no analogous calibration is shown for the non-Gaussian, correlated weak-lensing maps used in Table 1 and Figure 4. Because the Table 1 AUROC values are reported without error bars, repeated-training variance, or a convergence check in the Euler step count and Hutchinson trace estimator, the reader cannot determine whether the InD/OoD separations in Figure 3 are large compared with the estimator's bias and noise on WL maps. Please add a WL-map calibration check, such as the typical scatter of log p over held-out InD maps and the gap between InD and OoD log p, and report bootstrap or multi-seed AUROC uncertainties.
  2. [Table 1, MultiscaleFlow row] The entry 'MultiscaleFlow[38] ≳ 0.65' is imported from Ref. [38] rather than measured under the protocol of this paper, with different InD/OoD maps, noise levels, resolution, and possibly cosmology. The footnote argues that the difference in InD construction has a small effect, but this cannot be verified from the present data. Because the abstract and Section 4 explicitly claim that CTFM outperforms NF-based field-level estimators, this baseline should be re-evaluated on the same maps and noise settings used for the other methods, or the claim should be restricted to the methods actually benchmarked in this work.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Figure 6] The larger-area test combines the likelihoods of subfields as if they were independent, while those subfields are cut from the same maps and are spatially correlated; the product of marginal patch likelihoods is not the joint likelihood of a contiguous survey. If the five 3.5x3.5 deg^2 maps used for the 60 deg^2 case are independent realizations, the perfect AUROC in Figure 6 may reflect the combination of independent draws rather than the behavior on a genuinely correlated large-area map. Please clarify whether independence is assumed and, if so, quantify the effect of ignoring inter-pixel and inter-patch correlations on the reported AUROC.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.2, Eq. (2.9)] The Skilling-Hutchinson trace estimator is used with a single Gaussian noise realization per Euler step; reporting the number of trace samples or the variance of the divergence estimate across repeated evaluations of the same map would help the reader assess the estimator noise.
  2. [Section 3.2] There is a typo in 'computationlly expensive'; also, the phrase 'the density of a 128^2 map is the average of 4 64^2 map density cut from the original map' is slightly awkward and could be clarified as an average of log densities.
  3. [Table 2 and Section 3.3] The text says 'first four entries in Table 2' and 'last three additional cosmologies', but Table 2 contains a default row plus six additional rows; this wording is confusing and should be rephrased.
  4. [Footnote 4] The phrase 'MAP cosmology of the OoD maps' is unclear, since the OoD maps are BCM maps with baryon parameters rather than a different cosmology; the intended meaning should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3.1)] The sentence explaining when t grows says '(i) the model is overly broad—so its typical-set likelihood is lower than that of xmock'; this appears to describe the behavior of the two terms in Eq. (3.1) imprecisely, and the explanation should be reworded for clarity.
  6. [Various] The manuscript contains minor grammatical errors such as 'We provides detailed model architectures' and 'we find their the log density'; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central CTFM-vs-baseline result is an empirical AUROC comparison on simulated maps, with no fitted parameter, definitional equivalence, or load-bearing self-citation at the core.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmark: CTFM log-density estimates (Eq. 2.8) are evaluated on held-out DMO and BCM weak-lensing maps and scored by AUROC against feature-level (ST/CNN+NF) and NF baselines. The density estimators are trained only on InD DMO maps; the OoD BCM maps are never used in training, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Eq. 2.8 is the standard continuous-time flow density formula, and its numerical accuracy is checked on Gaussian random fields in Section 3.1; any residual estimator noise or bias on non-Gaussian WL maps would be a robustness or correctness concern, not a circular reduction. The self-citations present (MultiscaleFlow [38], TRENF [34], CNN comparison [55]) are used as baselines or context, not as premises that are equivalent to the conclusion. In particular, the quoted MultiscaleFlow AUROC is a benchmark from prior work that does not assume the current result, and the main CTFM advantage over feature-level methods is computed in this paper. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or definitional equivalence is imported from prior work. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical method comparison. It relies on standard CTFM density-estimation mathematics, domain assumptions about the posterior predictive formalism, the BCM proxy for baryonic bias, Gaussian noise, and ML generalization. No new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced. The BCM parameter ranges and the cosmology prior are unspecified experimental choices that affect the OoD set and the density values, so they are listed as free parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • BCM baryon parameters (Mc, M1,0, eta, beta) = varied, values not specified
    Each BCM map uses distinct baryon parameters to generate the OoD test set; the AUROC results depend on the distribution of these parameters, but the paper does not report the ranges or values used.
  • Cosmology prior for unconditional CTFM training = not specified
    Field-level CTFM models are trained unconditionally, so the density is the Bayesian evidence averaged over the cosmology prior; the prior distribution over cosmologies is not defined in the paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Posterior predictive distribution formalism (Eq. 2.1) is appropriate for forward model validation.
    Standard Bayesian consistency test, but assumes the posterior p(theta|xobs) is available and that the replication distribution is meaningful for the question of modeling bias.
  • domain assumption The CTFM density log p(x) from Eq. 2.8 is an accurate test statistic for OoD detection.
    Validated only on Gaussian random fields with about 6 scatter in log-density (Section 3.1); assumed to hold for weak lensing maps without further validation.
  • domain assumption BCM post-processing of DMO snapshots produces maps representative of baryonic modeling bias in real data.
    The paper calls the study a proof of concept with simplified forward modeling and a limited OoD test set (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Gaussian shape noise with sigma_g from Eq. 2.17 is a sufficient noise model.
    Noise is modeled as independent Gaussian per pixel; real surveys have more complex noise and observational systematics.
  • standard math The probability flow ODE and Skilling-Hutchinson trace estimator (Eqs. 2.7-2.9) give a valid density estimate.
    Standard results from the diffusion and flow-matching literature (refs [43,59-61]).
  • domain assumption The trained score/velocity neural networks generalize from training maps to test maps.
    All ML density estimators rely on train/test generalization; this is not explicitly tested across independent N-body simulations or cosmologies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detecting Modeling Bias with Continuous Time Flow Models on Weak Lensing Maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NL3FGO4L

@misc{pith2026250500632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detecting Modeling Bias with Continuous Time Flow Models on Weak Lensing Maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NL3FGO4L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00632}
}
read the original abstract

Simulation-based inference provides a powerful framework for extracting rich information from nonlinear scales in current and upcoming cosmological surveys, and ensuring its robustness requires stringent validation of forward models. In this work, we recast forward model validation as an out-of-distribution (OoD) detection problem within the framework of machine learning (ML)-based simulation-based inference (SBI). We employ probability density as the metric for OoD detection, and compare various density estimation techniques, demonstrating that field-level probability density estimation via continuous time flow models (CTFM) significantly outperforms feature-level approaches that combine scattering transform (ST) or convolutional neural networks (CNN) with normalizing flows (NFs), as well as NF-based field-level estimators, as quantified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Our analysis shows that CTFM not only excels in detecting OoD samples but also provides a robust metric for model selection. Additionally, we verified CTFM maintains consistent efficacy across different cosmologies while mitigating the inductive biases inherent in NF architectures. Although our proof-of-concept study employs simplified forward modeling and noise settings, our framework establishes a promising pathway for identifying unknown systematics in the cosmology datasets.

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. Machine Learning and the SKA for Cosmic Dawn and the Epoch of Reionization

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 2.5 of 10

    A multi-author overview of machine-learning algorithms proposed for instrument modelling, data analysis, simulation and inference in SKA Cosmic Dawn and Epoch of Reionization science.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [38]

    Dai and U

    B. Dai and U. Seljak, Multiscale Flow for robust and optimal cosmological analysis , Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 121 (2024) e2309624121

    2024

  2. [1]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, Phys. Rep. 340 (2001) 291 [astro-ph/9912508]

    arXiv 2001

  3. [2]

    Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review , Reports on Progress in Physics 78 (2015) 086901 [ 1411.0115]

    M. Kilbinger, Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review , Reports on Progress in Physics 78 (2015) 086901 [ 1411.0115]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    Hildebrandt, M

    H. Hildebrandt, M. Viola, C. Heymans, S. Joudaki, K. Kuijken, C. Blake et al., KiDS-450: cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing, MNRAS 465 (2017) 1454 [ 1606.05338]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [4]

    Joudaki, C

    S. Joudaki, C. Blake, C. Heymans, A. Choi, J. Harnois-Deraps, H. Hildebrandt et al., CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics , MNRAS 465 (2017) 2033 [ 1601.05786]. – 16 –

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Hikage, M

    C. Hikage, M. Oguri, T. Hamana, S. More, R. Mandelbaum, M. Takada et al., Cosmology from cosmic shear power spectra with Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam first-year data , PASJ 71 (2019) 43 [1809.09148]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Hamana, M

    T. Hamana, M. Shirasaki, S. Miyazaki, C. Hikage, M. Oguri, S. More et al., Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions with HSC survey first-year data , PASJ 72 (2020) 16 [ 1906.06041]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Ivezi´ c, S.M

    ˇZ. Ivezi´ c, 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

Show all 83 references
  1. [8]

    Scaramella, J

    Euclid Collaboration, R. Scaramella, J. Amiaux, Y. Mellier, C. Burigana, C.S. Carvalho et al., Euclid preparation. I. The Euclid Wide Survey , A&A 662 (2022) A112 [ 2108.01201]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    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]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Kitching, J

    T.D. Kitching, J. Alsing, A.F. Heavens, R. Jimenez, J.D. McEwen and L. Verde, The limits of cosmic shear, MNRAS 469 (2017) 2737 [ 1611.04954]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Takada and B

    M. Takada and B. Jain, Three-point correlations in weak lensing surveys: model predictions and applications, MNRAS 344 (2003) 857 [ astro-ph/0304034]

    2003 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Zaldarriaga and R

    M. Zaldarriaga and R. Scoccimarro, Higher Order Moments of the Cosmic Shear and Other Spin-2 Fields, ApJ 584 (2003) 559 [ astro-ph/0208075]

    2003 arXiv

  6. [13]

    L. Fu, M. Kilbinger, T. Erben, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt, H. Hoekstra et al., CFHTLenS: cosmological constraints from a combination of cosmic shear two-point and three-point correlations, MNRAS 441 (2014) 2725 [ 1404.5469]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Semboloni, T

    E. Semboloni, T. Schrabback, L. van Waerbeke, S. Vafaei, J. Hartlap and S. Hilbert, Weak lensing from space: first cosmological constraints from three-point shear statistics , MNRAS 410 (2011) 143 [ 1005.4941]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Carron, On the Incompleteness of the Moment and Correlation Function Hierarchy as Probes of the Lognormal Field , ApJ 738 (2011) 86 [ 1105.4467]

    J. Carron, On the Incompleteness of the Moment and Correlation Function Hierarchy as Probes of the Lognormal Field , ApJ 738 (2011) 86 [ 1105.4467]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Neyrinck, I

    M.C. Neyrinck, I. Szapudi and A.S. Szalay, Rejuvenating the Matter Power Spectrum: Restoring Information with a Logarithmic Density Mapping , ApJ 698 (2009) L90 [ 0903.4693]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [17]

    White, A marked correlation function for constraining modified gravity models , J

    M. White, A marked correlation function for constraining modified gravity models , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2016 (2016) 057 [ 1609.08632]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Jain and L

    B. Jain and L. Van Waerbeke, Statistics of Dark Matter Halos from Gravitational Lensing , ApJ 530 (2000) L1 [ astro-ph/9910459]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Kratochvil, Z

    J.M. Kratochvil, Z. Haiman and M. May, Probing cosmology with weak lensing peak counts , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 043519 [ 0907.0486]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Pisani, E

    A. Pisani, E. Massara, D.N. Spergel, D. Alonso, T. Baker, Y.-C. Cai et al., Cosmic voids: a novel probe to shed light on our Universe , BAAS 51 (2019) 40 [ 1903.05161]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Mecke, T

    K.R. Mecke, T. Buchert and H. Wagner, Robust morphological measures for large-scale structure in the Universe , A&A 288 (1994) 697 [ astro-ph/9312028]

    1994 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Kratochvil, E.A

    J.M. Kratochvil, E.A. Lim, S. Wang, Z. Haiman, M. May and K. Huffenberger, Probing cosmology with weak lensing Minkowski functionals , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 103513 [ 1109.6334]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Mallat, Group invariant scattering, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 65 (2012) 1331 [ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpa.21413]

    S. Mallat, Group invariant scattering, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 65 (2012) 1331 [ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpa.21413]

    2012 doi

  17. [24]

    Cheng and B

    S. Cheng and B. M´ enard,How to quantify fields or textures? A guide to the scattering transform , arXiv e-prints (2021) arXiv:2112.01288 [ 2112.01288]. – 17 –

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Cheng, Y.-S

    S. Cheng, Y.-S. Ting, B. M´ e nard and J. Bruna, A new approach to observational cosmology using the scattering transform , MNRAS 499 (2020) 5902

    2020

  19. [26]

    Valogiannis and C

    G. Valogiannis and C. Dvorkin, Towards an optimal estimation of cosmological parameters with the wavelet scattering transform , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 103534 [ 2108.07821]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Allys, T

    E. Allys, T. Marchand, J.F. Cardoso, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, S. Ho and S. Mallat, New interpretable statistics for large-scale structure analysis and generation , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 103506 [2006.06298]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Gupta, J.M

    A. Gupta, J.M. Zorrilla Matilla, D. Hsu and Z. Haiman, Non-Gaussian information from weak lensing data via deep learning , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 103515 [ 1802.01212]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Makinen, T

    T.L. Makinen, T. Charnock, J. Alsing and B.D. Wandelt, Lossless, scalable implicit likelihood inference for cosmological fields, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021 (2021) 049 [ 2107.07405]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    T. Lu, Z. Haiman and J.M. Zorrilla Matilla, Simultaneously constraining cosmology and baryonic physics via deep learning from weak lensing , MNRAS 511 (2022) 1518 [ 2109.11060]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    T. Lu, Z. Haiman and X. Li, Cosmological constraints from HSC survey first-year data using deep learning, MNRAS 521 (2023) 2050 [ 2301.01354]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Charnock, G

    T. Charnock, G. Lavaux and B.D. Wandelt, Automatic physical inference with information maximizing neural networks , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 083004 [ 1802.03537]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Makinen, C

    T.L. Makinen, C. Sui, B.D. Wandelt, N. Porqueres and A. Heavens, Hybrid Summary Statistics , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2410.07548 [ 2410.07548]

    2024

  27. [34]

    Dai and U

    B. Dai and U. Seljak, Translation and rotation equivariant normalizing flow (TRENF) for optimal cosmological analysis, MNRAS 516 (2022) 2363 [ 2202.05282]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Hassan, F

    S. Hassan, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, B. Wandelt, D.N. Spergel, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, S. Genel et al., HIFLOW: Generating Diverse HI Maps and Inferring Cosmology while Marginalizing over Astrophysics Using Normalizing Flows , ApJ 937 (2022) 83 [ 2110.02983]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Huang, T

    H.-J. Huang, T. Eifler, R. Mandelbaum and S. Dodelson, Modelling baryonic physics in future weak lensing surveys , MNRAS 488 (2019) 1652 [ 1809.01146]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Villaescusa-Navarro, D

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, S. Genel, D.N. Spergel, Y. Li, B. Wandelt et al., Multifield Cosmology with Artificial Intelligence , arXiv e-prints (2021) arXiv:2109.09747 [2109.09747]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Asgari, C.-A

    M. Asgari, C.-A. Lin, B. Joachimi, B. Giblin, C. Heymans, H. Hildebrandt et al., Kids-1000 cosmology: Cosmic shear constraints and comparison between two point statistics , Astronomy & Astrophysics 645 (2021) A104

    2021

  32. [40]

    Secco, S

    L.F. Secco, S. Samuroff, E. Krause, B. Jain, J. Blazek, M. Raveri et al., Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear and robustness to modeling uncertainty , Physical Review D 105 (2022) 023515

    2022

  33. [41]

    X. Li, T. Zhang, S. Sugiyama, R. Dalal, R. Terasawa, M.M. Rau et al., Hyper suprime-cam year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions , Physical Review D 108 (2023) 123518

    2023

  34. [42]

    Sohl-Dickstein, E.A

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E.A. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan and S. Ganguli, Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics, in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2015, Lille, France, 6-11 July 2015 , F.R. Bach and D.M. Blei, eds., ...

    2015

  35. [43]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D.P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon and B. Poole, Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations , in 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 , OpenReview.net,...

    2021

  36. [44]

    J. Ho, A. Jain and P. Abbeel, Denoising diffusion probabilistic models , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Lipman, R.T.Q

    Y. Lipman, R.T.Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel and M. Le, Flow matching for generative modeling, in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 , OpenReview.net, 2023, https://openreview.net/forum?id=PqvMRDCJT9t

    2023

  38. [46]

    Zhao, Y.-S

    X. Zhao, Y.-S. Ting, K. Diao and Y. Mao, Can diffusion model conditionally generate astrophysical images?, MNRAS 526 (2023) 1699 [ 2307.09568]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Schanz, F

    A. Schanz, F. List and O. Hahn, Stochastic Super-resolution of Cosmological Simulations with Denoising Diffusion Models , The Open Journal of Astrophysics 7 (2024) 104 [ 2310.06929]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Boruah, M

    S.S. Boruah, M. Jacob and B. Jain, Diffusion-based mass map reconstruction from weak lensing data, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2502.04158 [ 2502.04158]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Barco, A

    G.M. Barco, A. Adam, C. Stone, Y. Hezaveh and L. Perreault-Levasseur, Tackling the Problem of Distributional Shifts: Correcting Misspecified, High-Dimensional Data-Driven Priors for Inverse Problems, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2407.17667 [ 2407.17667]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Mudur, C

    N. Mudur, C. Cuesta-Lazaro and D.P. Finkbeiner, Diffusion-HMC: Parameter Inference with Diffusion-model-driven Hamiltonian Monte Carlo , ApJ 978 (2025) 64 [ 2405.05255]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gelman, X.-L

    A. Gelman, X.-L. Meng and H. Stern, Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies, Statistica sinica (1996) 733

    1996

  44. [52]

    Barber and F

    D. Barber and F. Agakov, The im algorithm: a variational approach to information maximization, in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’03, (Cambridge, MA, USA), p. 201–208, MIT Press, 2003

    2003

  45. [53]

    Lucas, C

    M.T. Lucas, C. Tom, A. Justin et al., Lossless, scalable implicit likelihood inference for cosmological fields, JCAP 11 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Lanzieri, J

    D. Lanzieri, J. Zeghal, T.L. Makinen, A. Boucaud, J.-L. Starck and F. Lanusse, Optimal neural summarization for full-field weak lensing cosmological implicit inference , Astronomy & Astrophysics 697 (2025) A162

    2025

  47. [55]

    Sharma, B

    D. Sharma, B. Dai and U. Seljak, A comparative study of cosmological constraints from weak lensing using Convolutional Neural Networks , J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2024 (2024) 010 [2403.03490]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    L. Dinh, J. Sohl-Dickstein and S. Bengio, Density estimation using real NVP , in 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings, OpenReview.net, 2017, https://openreview.net/forum?id=HkpbnH9lx

    2017

  49. [57]

    Andreux, T

    M. Andreux, T. Angles, G. Exarchakis, R. Leonarduzzi, G. Rochette, L. Thiry et al., Kymatio: Scattering transforms in python , Journal of Machine Learning Research 21 (2020) 1

    2020

  50. [58]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren and J. Sun, Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition, in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR , p. 1, June, 2016, DOI [1512.03385]. – 19 –

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    R.T. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt and D.K. Duvenaud, Neural ordinary differential equations, Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Skilling, The eigenvalues of mega-dimensional matrices , in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods: Cambridge, England, 1988 , J

    J. Skilling, The eigenvalues of mega-dimensional matrices , in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods: Cambridge, England, 1988 , J. Skilling, ed., (Dordrecht), pp. 455–466, Springer Netherlands (1989), DOI

    1989

  53. [61]

    Hutchinson, A stochastic estimator of the trace of the influence matrix for laplacian smoothing splines, Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 18 (1989) 1059

    M.F. Hutchinson, A stochastic estimator of the trace of the influence matrix for laplacian smoothing splines, Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 18 (1989) 1059

    1989

  54. [62]

    J. Song, C. Meng and S. Ermon, Denoising diffusion implicit models , in 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021 , OpenReview.net, 2021, https://openreview.net/forum?id=St1giarCHLP

    2021

  55. [63]

    S¨ arkk¨ a and A

    S. S¨ arkk¨ a and A. Solin,Applied stochastic differential equations, vol. 10, Cambridge University Press (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    McCann, A convexity principle for interacting gases , Advances in mathematics 128 (1997) 153

    R.J. McCann, A convexity principle for interacting gases , Advances in mathematics 128 (1997) 153

    1997

  57. [65]

    A. Tong, K. Fatras, N. Malkin, G. Huguet, Y. Zhang, J. Rector-Brooks et al., Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport , Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. 2024 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    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

  59. [67]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers and E.E. Falco, Gravitational Lenses, Springer (1992), 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

    1992 doi

  60. [68]

    Lu and Z

    T. Lu and Z. Haiman, The impact of baryons on cosmological inference from weak lensing statistics, MNRAS 506 (2021) 3406 [ 2104.04165]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Aric` o, R.E

    G. Aric` o, R.E. Angulo, C. Hern´ andez-Monteagudo, S. Contreras, M. Zennaro, M. Pellejero-Iba˜ nez et al.,Modelling the large-scale mass density field of the universe as a function of cosmology and baryonic physics , MNRAS 495 (2020) 4800 [ 1911.08471]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Pourrahmani, H

    M. Pourrahmani, H. Nayyeri and A. Cooray, LensFlow: A Convolutional Neural Network in Search of Strong Gravitational Lenses , ApJ 856 (2018) 68 [ 1705.05857]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Vafaei Sadr, B.A

    A. Vafaei Sadr, B.A. Bassett, N. Oozeer, Y. Fantaye and C. Finlay, Deep learning improves identification of Radio Frequency Interference, MNRAS 499 (2020) 379 [ 2005.08992]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Terasawa, X

    R. Terasawa, X. Li, M. Takada, T. Nishimichi, S. Tanaka, S. Sugiyama et al., Exploring the baryonic effect signature in the hyper suprime-cam year 3 cosmic shear two-point correlations on small scales: The s 8 tension remains present , Physical Review D 111 (2025) 063509

    2025

  65. [73]

    Kingma and P

    D.P. Kingma and P. Dhariwal, Glow: Generative flow with invertible 1x1 convolutions , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montr´ eal, Canada, S. Bengio, H.M....

    2018

  66. [74]

    Kirichenko, P

    P. Kirichenko, P. Izmailov and A.G. Wilson, Why normalizing flows fail to detect out-of-distribution data, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual, H. L...

    2020

  67. [75]

    Grathwohl, K

    W. Grathwohl, K. Wang, J. Jacobsen, D. Duvenaud, M. Norouzi and K. Swersky, Your classifier is secretly an energy based model and you should treat it like one , in 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020 , O...

    2020

  68. [76]

    Nalisnick, A

    E. Nalisnick, A. Matsukawa, Y. Whye Teh and B. Lakshminarayanan, Detecting Out-of-Distribution Inputs to Deep Generative Models Using Typicality , arXiv e-prints (2019) arXiv:1906.02994 [1906.02994]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Viviers, A

    C. Viviers, A. Valiuddin, F. Caetano, L. Abdi, L. Filatova, P. de With et al., Can Your Generative Model Detect Out-of-Distribution Covariate Shift? , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2409.03043 [2409.03043]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer and T. Brox, U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation, in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2015 - 18th International Conference Munich, Germany, October 5 - 9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III , N....

    2015

  71. [79]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez et al., Attention Is All You Need, arXiv e-prints (2017) arXiv:1706.03762 [ 1706.03762]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    unchanged

    V. Stimper, D. Liu, A. Campbell, V. Berenz, L. Ryll, B. Sch¨ olkopf et al., normflows: A PyTorch Package for Normalizing Flows , The Journal of Open Source Software 8 (2023) 5361 [2302.12014]. A Technical specifications of machine learning models employed in this work In this ...

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Linear Projections: The input features are projected into queries, keys, and values: Q = XWQ, K = XWK, V = XWV, where WQ, WK, WV∈ RC×d are learnable weight matrices and d is the dimension of the projected space

  74. [82]

    Scaled Dot-Product Attention: The attention weights are computed by taking the dot product of the queries and keys, scaling by √ d to ensure stable gradients, and applying the softmax function: A = softmax QK⊤ √ d

  75. [83]

    The output Y is merged with the original input via a residual connection and further refined with normalization and feed-forward layers

    Output Computation: Finally, the output of the attention block is obtained as a weighted sum of the values: Y = AV. The output Y is merged with the original input via a residual connection and further refined with normalization and feed-forward layers. Apart from the input and...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.