Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Vlasov Perturbation Theory applied to $\Lambda$CDM

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The two-loop Vlasov perturbation theory matter power spectrum is a stable prediction for ΛCDM clustering, agreeing with N-body results at the percent level with only the average velocity dispersion scale as input.

desk verdict Solid, honest extension of VPT to LambdaCDM; the percent-level robustness claim holds up despite a minor fVPT extrapolation at high k_sigma. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02907 v1 pith:UWX23FWC submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Mathias Garny , Dominik Laxhuber , Roman Scoccimarro This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords VlasovperturbationtheorymatterpowerspectrumΛCDMvelocitydispersionshellcrossingUVscreeningtwo-loopN-bodycomparison
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 aims to establish that Vlasov Perturbation Theory (VPT) yields a robust, essentially parameter-free prediction for the two-loop matter power spectrum in ΛCDM. VPT differs from Standard Perturbation Theory (SPT) by working with the collisionless Vlasov-Poisson system rather than a pressureless fluid, so it keeps the velocity dispersion tensor and, crucially, its non-zero homogeneous average generated by shell crossing. That average defines a dispersion scale $k_\sigma(z)$ that screens the backreaction of short-wavelength modes, making loop integrals cutoff-independent. The authors show that when $k_\sigma(z)$ is taken from a halo-model estimate, the two-loop VPT power spectrum agrees with N-body simulations at the percent level out to $k\approx 0.22\,h/\mathrm{Mpc}$ at $z=0.34$, and that varying $k_\sigma$ over a factor of three changes the result by only about 1%. If correct, this would put the weakly nonlinear regime targeted by current galaxy surveys on a first-principles basis, without the free counterterms of effective field theory.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Vlasov-Poisson cumulant hierarchy. Instead of treating dark matter as a pressureless fluid, VPT expands the phase-space distribution function around its average and evolves its cumulants: density, velocity, velocity dispersion tensor, third cumulant, and so on. The lowest cumulant that can acquire a non-zero homogeneous average is the velocity dispersion tensor, whose isotropic average $\epsilon(z)$ introduces the dispersion scale $k_\sigma(z)=\epsilon(z)^{-1/2}$; higher average cumulants are parameterized by dimensionless ratios such as $\bar{E}_4$. Perturbations around these averages are expanded in kernels $F_{n,a}$, and the power spectrum is built from the standard one- and two-loop integrals evaluated with these VPT kernels. The load-bearing object is the linear VPT kernel $F_1(k,z)$, which already at linear level suppresses modes with $k\gtrsim k_\sigma$ and thereby produces UV screening; the approximate scheme fVPT multiplies SPT kernels by one factor of $F_1$ per external wavevector, capturing the dominant dispersion effects at the same numerical cost as SPT.

What would settle it

Measure the velocity dispersion $\epsilon(z)$ directly from the velocities of the particles in the same N-body runs that provide the reference spectra, insert it into VPT, and compare the two-loop power spectrum to the simulation: if the result departs by more than the quoted 1–2% on $k\lesssim 0.2\,h/\mathrm{Mpc}$, or if it becomes strongly dependent on the measured $k_\sigma$, the single-scale dispersion premise is wrong. Equivalently, run an N-body variant in which small-scale clustering is modified (for example, by truncating the initial power spectrum) so as to change the physical dispersion while leaving large scales fixed; VPT should still reproduce the new spectrum at the percent level, and if it does not, the screening mechanism is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two-loop matter power spectrum in ΛCDM is a genuine prediction of collisionless dynamics once the Vlasov hierarchy is truncated at the second cumulant and supplied with one non-perturbative input: the time-dependent average velocity dispersion $\epsilon(z)=\langle \sigma_{ii}\rangle/(3(fH)^2)$, equivalently the scale $k_\sigma(z)=\epsilon(z)^{-1/2}$. Three properties together justify the word prediction. First, the result is independent of the ultraviolet cutoff, because VPT's linear kernels already suppress modes with $k\gtrsim k_\sigma$, capturing the physical screening of UV backreaction that SPT misses. Second, the result is insensitive to the value of $k_\sigma$: even when $k_\sigma$ varies from $0.25$ to $0.8\,h/\mathrm{Mpc}$, the two-loop power spectrum at $z=0.34$ changes by only about $1\%$ on weakly nonlinear scales, as a consequence of a cancellation between linear suppression and a reduced negative two-loop $P_{15}$-type contribution. Third, the result is robust to truncating the cumulant hierarchy: including third-cumulant perturbations with $\bar{E}_4=\pm 0.6$ changes the spectrum at the sub-percent level. With a halo-model estimate of $\epsilon(z)$, the two-loop VPT spectrum matches the reference N-body data to better than $1\%$ at $z=0.34$ up to $k\approx 0.22\,h/\mathrm{Mpc}$, and the small remaining deficit of about $2\%$ at $z=0$ is consistent with missing three-loop contributions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the premise that the effect of shell crossing can be summarized by a single time-dependent, spatially homogeneous average velocity dispersion scale $k_\sigma(z)$, and that the halo-model value used for it is not badly biased; if small-scale dynamics generates a richer or scale-dependent dispersion, the VPT prediction would lose its anchor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-loop VPT matter power spectrum is independent of the ultraviolet cutoff, so perturbative predictions for ΛCDM clustering no longer require an arbitrary UV scale.
  • With $k_\sigma$ from a halo-model estimate, percent-level agreement with N-body data is achieved on weakly nonlinear scales without fitting counterterms, a regime directly relevant to current galaxy surveys.
  • Because the result changes by only about $1\%$ when $k_\sigma$ varies over a factor of three, $k_\sigma$ is not an adjustable EFT-type parameter; the predicted plateau is itself a testable constraint on collisionless dynamics.
  • The fVPT scheme reproduces full VPT at the percent level while costing the same as SPT, so existing SPT-based codes can be upgraded to include UV-screened kernels, for example by rescaling the input power spectrum.
  • The residual deviation at $z=0$ scales as $[D(z)]^8$, identifying missing three-loop and higher contributions as the main next target for the framework.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $k_\sigma$-insensitivity persists at higher loop order, the plateau value of the power spectrum becomes a prediction of the Vlasov-Poisson system almost independent of the microphysics of shell crossing; a measurable deviation would then signal physics beyond collisionless cold dark matter, such as baryonic feedback or warm dark matter.
  • Redshift-space power spectra, which depend on the velocity field, should be considerably more sensitive to $k_\sigma$ than the real-space spectrum; a joint analysis of real- and redshift-space clustering could therefore measure $k_\sigma(z)$ and test whether the halo-model dispersion is the right input.
  • The same parameter-free program could be extended to the bispectrum and to velocity statistics in ΛCDM, where the EFT approach requires many additional free parameters, making VPT predictions comparatively more powerful there.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies Vlasov Perturbation Theory (VPT), previously developed by the authors for scale-free cosmologies, to the two-loop matter power spectrum in a ΛCDM cosmology. VPT differs from SPT by incorporating the average velocity dispersion tensor, which introduces a time-dependent dispersion scale kσ(z) and yields UV screening of loop integrals. The authors compare their two-loop VPT result to a LasDamas-Oriana N-body simulation, report sub-percent agreement at z = 0.34 and about 2% deviations at z = 0, attribute the residuals to missing three-loop contributions, and demonstrate insensitivity to the dispersion scale, to the cumulant truncation order, and to the UV cutoff. They also introduce fVPT, an approximate scheme in which SPT nonlinear kernels are multiplied by products of linear VPT kernels, and use fVPT for detailed parameter scans and tests of robustness.

Significance. If correct, the paper would establish that a perturbative treatment of the Vlasov-Poisson system, without EFT-style counterterms, predicts the late-time ΛCDM matter power spectrum at percent level on weakly nonlinear scales while curing SPT's spurious UV sensitivity. The robustness of the two-loop result to the dispersion input is a strong and non-trivial result, and the fVPT scheme is a practical contribution that can be ported into existing SPT-based pipelines. The numerical work includes explicit checks of cutoff independence and truncation dependence, and the central claim is falsifiable against N-body results. The main caveat is that the widest robustness scans are performed with the approximate fVPT scheme rather than with full VPT.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.A-B, Figs. 6-9] The central robustness numbers quoted in the abstract and conclusions (variation by about 1% at z = 0.34 and 4% at z = 0 when kσ is varied from 0.25 to 0.8 h/Mpc) are obtained with the fVPT approximation, not with full VPT. fVPT is introduced through the ansatz in Eq. (13) and is validated against full VPT in Fig. 6 only for the fiducial halo-model dispersion, with kσ(0) = 0.36 h/Mpc. Full VPT is shown at three halo-model values in Fig. 4, but the detailed scans over 0.25-0.8 h/Mpc and over α in Figs. 7-9 use fVPT. Since the fVPT kernel form is an approximation rather than a derived truncation of VPT, the authors should provide full-VPT two-loop results at least at the endpoints of the scan, e.g. kσ = 0.25 and 0.8 h/Mpc with ϵ(z) ∝ D(z)^α, or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims to fVPT. The same issue applies to the cutoff-independence demonstration in Appendix A, Fig. 10, which is computed with fVPT; if a full-VPT check is not feasible, the text and the concluding statements should say so.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 5] The claim that the two-loop power spectrum is robust to truncating the Vlasov hierarchy is tested in Fig. 5 for the average fourth cumulant only at E4 = ±0.6, even though the stability window for E4 is stated to be −6 ≤ E4 ≤ 2. Because the insensitivity to truncation is one of the headline results, the scan should cover the full allowed range, or the choice of ±0.6 should be justified as representative, for example by reference to a dedicated scan in the earlier paper [12]. Without this, the quantitative statement that higher cumulants matter at sub-percent level is not fully supported by the figure presented here.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (10)] In the two-loop integrand, the argument of F3 should read k − p − q rather than k − q − q, based on the momentum-conservation structure of the term.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. I] There is a typo in the abstract: 'schemefVPT' should be 'scheme fVPT'.
  3. [Sec. III, around Fig. 3] The statement that 'for the VPT result, no free parameters were adjusted' should be qualified, because the fiducial dispersion ϵ(z) from Eq. (12) is constructed from halo mass functions and NFW profiles that were fitted to N-body simulations in the literature. The subsequent robustness analysis mitigates this, but the phrase 'no free parameters' is stronger than the actual setup.
  4. [Sec. III, Fig. 3 and Conclusions] The attribution of residuals to missing three-loop contributions via a D(z)^8 growth-factor scaling is plausible but is not quantified with a fit or error estimate. Showing the residual ratio against the predicted D(z)^8 scaling in a small table or plot would strengthen this point.
  5. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 6] The text says that fVPT and full VPT agree at the percent level, but the figure is shown without an explicit residual panel. Adding a residual plot would make the validation easier to assess quantitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the k_sigma-robustness is an emergent two-loop cancellation rather than an input identity, and the halo-model input is not the predicted P(k).

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the two-loop VPT matter power spectrum is insensitive to the average velocity dispersion scale k_sigma, with only percent-level variation when k_sigma changes by a factor of about three. This claim is not circular: it is an emergent cancellation between the k_sigma-dependence of the linear VPT result and the loop contributions (especially P15), as shown in Figs. 4, 7, and 8. No equation in the paper reduces the prediction to its input by construction; the fVPT kernels in Eq. (13) are an explicitly labeled ansatz and are validated against full VPT, not assumed to equal it. The average dispersion epsilon(z) from Eq. (12) is informed by N-body-calibrated halo model ingredients, but the predicted quantity is the matter power spectrum, not the halo mass function or NFW dispersion profile; thus the agreement with N-body P(k) is not a re-announcement of a fitted quantity. The paper also shows robustness over a wide k_sigma range, so even if the halo-model estimate were biased, the main prediction would be largely unaffected. The only caveat is that the wide-range k_sigma scan in Figs. 7-8 is performed with fVPT, which is explicitly validated against full VPT only at the fiducial epsilon(z) in Fig. 6; this is a validation-coverage concern, not circularity. The heavy self-citation to the authors' prior VPT papers [10-12] is expected for a framework-building line of work and is not used here as a substitute for evidence, since the paper compares against external N-body simulations. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; it relies on the Vlasov-Poisson system and the average dispersion as a non-perturbative input. The two parameters k_sigma and alpha (plus E4 in cmax=3 tests) are the free inputs, but the central result is shown to be insensitive to them.

free parameters (3)
  • k_sigma (dispersion scale at z=0) = 0.25 to 0.8 h/Mpc; fiducial 0.36 h/Mpc from halo model with 1.5 r_vir
    Non-perturbative input scale; determined from halo model Eq. (12) or varied as free parameter in Fig. 1. Two-loop P(k) changes only at percent level across this range.
  • alpha (growth-rate exponent of epsilon(z) ~ D(z)^alpha) = 3.23 for fiducial broken power-law fit to halo-model epsilon(z); varied 2 to 5
    Parameterizes the redshift dependence of the average dispersion in Eq. (11); two-loop P(k) is mildly dependent (Fig. 9).
  • E4 (dimensionless average fourth cumulant) = ±0.6, within stability bound −6 to 2
    Average fourth cumulant input for the cmax=3 truncation tests (Fig. 5); chosen to bracket plausible values and the result is insensitive to it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The collisionless dark matter distribution in the weakly nonlinear regime obeys the Vlasov-Poisson system (Eq. 1) with Poisson equation.
    Underlies all VPT derivations; standard in cosmology for scales below the Hubble radius.
  • domain assumption The velocity dispersion tensor develops a non-zero isotropic average epsilon(z) delta_K_ij (Eq. 5) that captures shell-crossing effects; higher cumulant averages (e.g., E4) are subdominant.
    Central modeling premise; truncation tests in Sec. III B show negligible impact of third and higher cumulants.
  • ad hoc to paper The fVPT ansatz of Eq. (13), replacing SPT kernels by products of linear VPT kernels, accurately approximates full VPT on weakly nonlinear scales.
    Validated only numerically (Fig. 6, percent-level agreement); not derived from the Vlasov hierarchy.
  • domain assumption The LasDamas-Oriana N-body simulation (Gadget2, 2LPT initial conditions, L=2400 Mpc/h, N=1280^3) accurately represents the true collisionless matter power spectrum at the percent level.
    Used as ground truth for all comparisons; cosmic variance and resolution systematics are not quantified in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vlasov Perturbation Theory applied to $\Lambda$CDM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWX23FWC

@misc{pith2026250502907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vlasov Perturbation Theory applied to $\Lambda$CDM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWX23FWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02907}
}
abstract

We apply the framework of Vlasov Perturbation Theory (VPT) to the two-loop matter power spectrum within $\Lambda$CDM cosmologies. The main difference to Standard Perturbation Theory (SPT) arises from taking the velocity dispersion tensor into account, and the resulting screening of the backreaction of UV modes renders loop integrals cutoff-independent. VPT is informed about non-perturbative small scale dynamics via the average value of the dispersion generated by shell-crossing, which impacts the evolution of perturbations on weakly non-linear scales. When using an average dispersion from halo models, the VPT power spectrum agrees with the one from the simulation, up to differences from missing three-loop contributions. Alternatively, treating the average dispersion as free parameter we find a remarkably stable prediction of the matter power spectrum from collisionless dynamics at percent level for a wide range of the dispersion scale. We quantify the impact of truncating the Vlasov hierarchy for the cumulants of the phase-space distribution function, finding that the two-loop matter power spectrum is robust to neglecting third and higher cumulants. Finally, we introduce and validate a simplified fast scheme fVPT that can be easily incorporated into existing codes and is as numerically efficient as SPT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Matter power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Average velocity dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of the matter power spectrum on the average dispersion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence of the matter power spectrum on the truncation order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Similar as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (In-)dependence of two-loop power spectrum on the UV cutoff in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

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. GGI Lectures on Large-Scale Structure Perturbation Theory (Effective Field Theory)

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    Pedagogical notes derive large-scale-structure EFT from symmetries, covering SPT failures, BAO IR resummation, counterterms, galaxy bias, redshift-space distortions, and Lagrangian PT.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

    Garny, D

    M. Garny, D. Laxhuber, and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063540 (2023), arXiv:2210.08089 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Nevertheless, even for ΛCDM initial spectra, the fact that the two-loop result approaches the SPT limit only very slowly when increasing kσ (see blue and black solid lines in Fig

    Note that this would be different for scaling models for which the one- and two-loop integrals are UV diver- gent in SPT, since they feature relevant contributions to the loop integral within VPT forp,q∼kσ no matter how largekσ is. Nevertheless, even for ΛCDM initial spectra, the fact that the two-loop result approaches the SPT limit only very slowly when...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Aghamousa et al

    A. Aghamousa et al. (DESI), (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Mellier et al

    Y. Mellier et al. (Euclid), (2024), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga, and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rept. 367, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0112551

    arXiv 2002

  6. [5]

    P. J. E. Peebles, The large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton university press, 1980)

    work page 1980

  7. [6]

    Bernardeau, A

    F. Bernardeau, A. Taruya, and T. Nishimichi, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023502 (2014), arXiv:1211.1571 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    D. Blas, M. Garny, and T. Konstandin, JCAP 01, 010 (2014), arXiv:1309.3308 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Nishimichi, F

    T. Nishimichi, F. Bernardeau, and A. Taruya, Physics Letters B 762, 247 (2016), arXiv:1411.2970 [astro- ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Nishimichi, F

    T. Nishimichi, F. Bernardeau, and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D96, 123515 (2017), arXiv:1708.08946 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, and M. Zal- darriaga, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 7, 051 (2012), arXiv:1004.2488 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Garny, D

    M. Garny, D. Laxhuber, and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063539 (2023), arXiv:2210.08088 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Garny and R

    M. Garny and R. Scoccimarro, (2025), arXiv:2502.20451 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Pueblas and R

    S. Pueblas and R. Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D 80, 043504 (2009), arXiv:0809.4606 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    McDonald, J

    P. McDonald, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2011, 032 (2011), arXiv:0910.1002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Colombi, MNRAS 446, 2902 (2015), arXiv:1411.4165

    S. Colombi, MNRAS 446, 2902 (2015), arXiv:1411.4165

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aviles, Physical Review D 93 (2016), 10.1103/phys- revd.93.063517

    A. Aviles, Physical Review D 93 (2016), 10.1103/phys- revd.93.063517

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Uhlemann, JCAP 10, 030 (2018), arXiv:1807.07274 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Uhlemann, JCAP 10, 030 (2018), arXiv:1807.07274 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    McDonald and Z

    P. McDonald and Z. Vlah, Phys. Rev. D 97, 023508 (2018), arXiv:1709.02834 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. Saga, A. Taruya, and S. Colombi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241302 (2018), arXiv:1805.08787 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Erschfeld and S

    A. Erschfeld and S. Floerchinger, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys. 2019, 039 (2019), arXiv:1812.06891 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Erschfeld and S

    A. Erschfeld and S. Floerchinger, JCAP 02, 053 (2024), arXiv:2305.18517 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nascimento and M

    C. Nascimento and M. Loverde, (2024), arXiv:2410.05389 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    McBride, A

    C. McBride, A. Berlind, R. Scoccimarro, R. Wechsler, M. Busha, J. Gardner, and F. van den Bosch, in Ameri- can Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #213, Amer- ican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 213 (2009) p. 425.06

    2009

  17. [25]

    Sinha, A

    M. Sinha, A. A. Berlind, C. K. McBride, R. Scoccimarro, J. A. Piscionere, and B. D. Wibking, MNRAS 478, 1042 (2018), arXiv:1708.04892 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Crocce, R

    M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro, and F. Bernardeau, MNRAS 427, 2537 (2012), arXiv:1207.1465

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Springel, MNRAS 364, 1105 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0505010

    V. Springel, MNRAS 364, 1105 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0505010

    2005

  20. [28]

    Scoccimarro, MNRAS 299, 1097 (1998), astro- ph/9711187

    R. Scoccimarro, MNRAS 299, 1097 (1998), astro- ph/9711187

    1998

  21. [29]

    Crocce, S

    M. Crocce, S. Pueblas, and R. Scoccimarro, MNRAS 373, 369 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606505

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D. Blas, M. Garny, and T. Konstandin, JCAP 09, 024 (2013), arXiv:1304.1546 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, MNRAS 308, 119 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9901122

    1999 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Despali, C

    G. Despali, C. Giocoli, R. E. Angulo, G. Tormen, R. K. Sheth, G. Baso, and L. Moscardini, MNRAS 456, 2486 (2016), arXiv:1507.05627 [astro-ph.CO]. 13 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.90 0.95 1.00 k[h/Mpc] P(k)/P cut=10h /Mpc fVPT 2L (k) z=0. 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.90 0.95 1.00 k[...

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cole and C

    S. Cole and C. Lacey, MNRAS 281, 716 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9510147 [astro-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  26. [34]

    N. S. Sugiyama and T. Futamase, Astrophys. J. 769, 106 (2013), arXiv:1303.2748 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Simonovi´ c, T

    M. Simonovi´ c, T. Baldauf, M. Zaldarriaga, J. J. Car- rasco, and J. A. Kollmeier, JCAP 04, 030 (2018), arXiv:1708.08130 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Baldauf, L

    T. Baldauf, L. Mercolli, M. Mirbabayi, and E. Pa- jer, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2015, 007 (2015), arXiv:1406.4135 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Schmidt, JCAP 04, 032 (2021), arXiv:2009.14176 [astro-ph.CO]

    F. Schmidt, JCAP 04, 032 (2021), arXiv:2009.14176 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Baldauf, L

    T. Baldauf, L. Mercolli, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D92, 123007 (2015), arXiv:1507.02256 [astro- ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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