Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Renormalized Perturbation Theory at Field-level: the LSS bootstrap in GridSPT

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fifth-order renormalized field-level perturbation theory removes grid-cutoff dependence and recovers the bootstrap coefficient 2.4 times more precisely than third-order theory.

desk verdict Genuinely useful Wilsonian renormalization at field level, but the unbiased-extraction claim overreaches because the UV higher-derivative coefficients are set to zero and kmax is chosen with the true answer. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07105 v1 pith:6O5ET7DO submitted 2025-06-08 astro-ph.CO

Matteo Peron , Takahiro Nishimichi , Massimo Pietroni , Atsushi Taruya This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.35.+d
keywords large-scalestructurefield-levelinferenceperturbationtheoryWilsonianrenormalizationLSSbootstrapgriddiscretizationhigher-derivativecountertermseffectivefield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that field-level perturbative inference from cosmological large-scale structure can be made independent of the numerical grid on which the density field is discretized. The route is a Wilsonian renormalization scheme: a model defined at a high ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda_{\mathrm{uv}}$ is related to models at lower cutoffs $\Lambda$ by analytically integrating out the modes between the two scales, generating computable counterterms that absorb the grid artifact. Using an extension of the GridSPT code that adds the second-order bootstrap field $\varphi^{(2)}_\gamma$ to the standard EdS kernels, the authors validate the scheme at third and fifth order against N-body-like data with added shot noise. At fifth order, including the analytically computed higher-derivative counterterm contributions removes the residual $\Lambda$-dependence of the extracted bootstrap coefficient $\varepsilon_\gamma$ and improves its precision by a factor of 2.4 relative to the third-order model. The aim is a model-independent, symmetry-based test of new physics in the nonlinear regime, extendable to biased tracers and redshift space.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Wilsonian relation between a UV theory at $\Lambda_{\mathrm{uv}}$ and a model at lower cutoff $\Lambda$, expressed as $\delta^{[N]}_\Lambda + \Delta\delta^{[N]}_\Lambda = \delta^{[N]}(k)$, where $\Delta\delta^{[N]}_\Lambda$ splits into a perturbatively computable part $\Delta\delta^{[N]}_{\Lambda,\Lambda_{\mathrm{uv}}}$ from integrating out modes and a nonperturbative part fixed by renormalization conditions. The GridSPT code, a grid-based Eulerian perturbation-theory solver, generates the EdS fields to which the bootstrap operator is added. The bootstrap field $\varphi^{(2)}_\gamma$, defined as the $\gamma$ mode-coupling operator of the second-order density kernel, carries the coefficient $\varepsilon_\gamma$; its cross-correlations with the quadratic operators $X$ are what the higher-derivative counterterms correct. The running of the corresponding coefficients, e.g. $c^{(3)}_{\Lambda,\Lambda_{\mathrm{uv}}}$ and $c^{(4)}_{X;\Lambda,\Lambda_{\mathrm{uv}}}$, is computed analytically in perturbation theory, and this running supplies the counterterm correction used in Eq. (5.12).

What would settle it

Vary the assumed UV values $c^{[5]}_{X,\Lambda_{\mathrm{uv}}}$ over a plausible nonzero range, or fix them by matching a second observable, and rerun the $N=5$ MAP extraction; the central claim fails if the recovered $\varepsilon_\gamma$ moves by more than the quoted uncertainty or if the $\Lambda$-independence disappears. A direct observational check is to apply the pipeline to two simulations with identical large-scale linear fields but different small-scale physics and see whether the inferred $\varepsilon_\gamma$ shifts by a $\Lambda$-independent constant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a properly renormalized grid-based perturbative model yields cutoff-independent predictions for the LSS bootstrap coefficient. Concretely, the paper reports that when the $N=5$ model is supplemented by the analytically computed contributions from the quadratic higher-derivative operators $X=\{\varphi^2,\varphi_\beta,\varphi_\gamma,\varphi_{\tilde{\gamma}}\}$ (Eq. 5.12), the residual $\Lambda$-dependence of the maximum a posteriori $\varepsilon_\gamma$ disappears, and the recovered value agrees with the true input while the uncertainty shrinks by a factor 2.4 compared with $N=3$. This is taken as evidence that the counterterm structure derived from symmetries and computed in perturbation theory is sufficient to remove grid artifacts, so that the bootstrap parameter can be extracted without contamination from the discretization scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unknown ultraviolet values of the four higher-derivative counterterm coefficients are zero; if they are not, they shift $\varepsilon_\gamma$ by the same amount at every grid cutoff, so the demonstrated cutoff-independence would not by itself make the extracted value correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $N=5$, the $\varepsilon_\gamma$ posterior is stable across grid cutoffs once higher-derivative counterterms are included, so smaller grids can be used in practical analyses without introducing bias.
  • The precision gain of a factor 2.4 from $N=3$ to $N=5$ follows from the larger accessible $k_{\max}$ at higher perturbative order, linking renormalization quality directly to statistical power.
  • The measured running of the sound-speed coefficients $c^{[3]}_\Lambda$ and $c^{[5]}_\Lambda$ follows the perturbative prediction up to a $\Lambda$-independent shift, validating the counterterm structure against N-body data.
  • Stochastic counterterms do not correlate with the fields used in the MAP estimators, so they can be dropped from the $\varepsilon_\gamma$ and $c^{[N]}_\Lambda$ extraction without loss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cutoff-independence demonstrated here is internal consistency; it does not by itself guarantee unbiasedness, because the analysis sets the UV values $c^{[5]}_{X,\Lambda_{\mathrm{uv}}}$ to zero and chooses $k_{\max}$ using the known true value of $\varepsilon_\gamma$, so a blind application would need a prior or renormalization condition for those coefficients.
  • A natural stress test is to vary the assumed UV coefficients over a plausible nonzero range; if the extracted $\varepsilon_\gamma$ shifts by a $\Lambda$-independent constant, then the current posteriors would be offset by exactly the kind of term the paper's assumption excludes.
  • Because bias operators are not protected by momentum conservation, their renormalization starts at $O(k^0)$, so extending this field-level scheme to galaxies will require more counterterms and a different hierarchy of higher-derivative corrections than the matter case treated here.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper develops a renormalized, field-level implementation of Eulerian perturbation theory on a discrete grid (GridSPT), extended to include the model-independent LSS bootstrap parameter εγ, which parameterizes deviations of the second-order density kernel from its EdS/ΛCDM value. The central methodological contribution is a Wilsonian treatment of the grid cutoff: the theory is defined at a high cutoff Λuv, and the perturbative running of counterterms down to a lower cutoff Λ is computed analytically, including higher-derivative quadratic operators (φ^2, φγ, φβ, φ~γ) at fourth order. The running is compared with N-body measurements that include artificial Poisson shot noise. The authors study models truncated at N=3 and N=5, and show that at N=5 the addition of an analytically computed higher-derivative correction (Eq. 5.12) removes the residual Λ-dependence of the extracted εγ and improves the precision on εγ by a factor of 2.4. The paper concludes that cutoff-independent, unbiased parameter extraction is achievable with this framework.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this is a valuable step toward field-level cosmological inference in the EFT-of-LSS framework, and it provides a concrete extension of GridSPT to a model-independent bootstrap parametrization. The explicit perturbative computation of the counterterm running, Eqs. (4.33), (4.40), and (4.57), is careful, and the internal consistency check that the N=5 residual Λ-dependence disappears after including the analytically computed higher-derivative contribution (Fig. 6, lower right) is a genuine and nontrivial test. The comparison of the predicted running with N-body measurements, using the UV boundary value fitted at Λuv, follows standard EFT practice. However, the quantitative claim of unbiased parameter extraction is supported by two load-bearing assumptions that are not tested within the paper: the vanishing of the UV boundary values of the higher-derivative counterterm coefficients, and a kmax selection rule that uses the known true value of εγ. Both issues are fixable in a revised validation protocol, but they currently prevent the paper from establishing the headline claim as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (5.12)] The claim that the N=5 model achieves unbiased parameter extraction is not established by the demonstrated Λ-independence. In Eq. (5.12), the higher-derivative correction is computed only from the perturbative running coefficients c^[5]_{X;Λ,Λuv} of Eq. (4.40); as stated in Sec. 5.3, this is equivalent to setting c^[5]_{X,Λuv}=0. The full coefficient at scale Λ is c^[5]_{X,Λ}=c^[5]_{X;Λ,Λuv}+c^[5]_{X,Λuv}. Since the operators X={φ^2, φγ, φβ, φ~γ} have nonzero correlation with φγ^(2), a nonzero UV boundary value adds a contribution to the extracted εγ that is, at leading order, independent of Λ. The agreement across Λ in Fig. 6 is therefore fully compatible with a constant, a priori unknown bias in εγ. No renormalization condition in the paper fixes these four coefficients. I recommend either promoting c^[5]_{X,Λuv} to free parameters (or profiling over them with priors), deriving their values from a separate observable, or explicitly reframing the headline claim as conditional on c^[5]_{X,Λuv}=0 and quantifying the induced bias.
  2. [Sec. 6, Fig. 5] The procedure used to choose kmax undermines the validation of unbiased recovery. The text states that the analysis stops when the deviation of the extracted εγ from the true value is equal to 1σ. Because εγ,ΛCDM is known a priori in this simulated test, the chosen kmax values (0.09 and 0.14 h Mpc^{-1} for N=3 and N=5) guarantee by construction that the true value sits at the 1σ boundary of the posterior. This cannot demonstrate that the estimator is unbiased at the chosen scale in a real analysis, where the true value is unknown; it only shows consistency under a selection rule that uses the truth. A truth-independent criterion (for example, goodness-of-fit, posterior stability as a function of kmax, or convergence of the PT expansion) should be adopted, and the validation should be repeated with kmax fixed before inspecting εγ.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 6, Table 1] The phrase 'see Table 6' in the text should read 'see Table 1'.
  2. [Sec. 6, Fig. 5 caption] The text describes the regions for N=3 as 'blue areas' and for N=5 as 'orange areas', while the caption says 'pink area' and 'blue area'; please make the color coding consistent between text and caption.
  3. [Sec. 6, Fig. 6 caption] The statement that the posteriors are 'averaged over the ten shot noise realizations, that is their maximum is the average of the ten maximums' is imprecise: the maximum of an averaged posterior is not generally the average of the individual maxima. Please clarify whether the displayed contours are the average of the individual posteriors or a combined posterior built from the ten realizations.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The notation '2 0003 grid points' and '3 000 3 particles' should be typeset as 2000^3 and 3000^3, respectively.
  5. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.21)] The squared Heaviside functions in the definition of P_{Λ,Λuv}(q) are redundant and could be simplified to Θ(Λuv−q)Θ(q−Λ).
  6. [Sec. 4.4 and Sec. 5.2] The identification c^[5]_{X,Λ}=c^(4)_{X,Λ} appears without explanation; please state explicitly in Sec. 4.4 why fifth-order contributions to these quadratic operators do not appear at the considered order.
  7. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.1)] The likelihood assumes independent Fourier modes with constant noise p_eps=1/nbar, but no validation of posterior coverage or of the Gaussianity and independence of the residuals is provided; since the kmax criterion is phrased in units of 1σ from this likelihood, a brief coverage test would strengthen the quoted error estimates.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The RG running is independently derived, but the claimed unbiased εγ extraction partly reduces to the input assumption c^{[5]}_{X,Λuv}=0; the k_max choice also uses the true εγ.

  1. other [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (5.12); Sec. 7 conclusions]
    "Notice that we will consider only the contributions to ∆ε^{[5],X}_{γ,Λ} coming from the perturbative running from Λuv to Λ, which is equivalent to setting c^{[5]}_{X,Λuv}=0. ... In the N=5 case, we demonstrated that including the contributions from higher-derivative terms quadratic in the linear fields is essential for achieving Λ-independent results and for obtaining an unbiased extraction of the bootstrap coefficient."

    The analytic correction added to the fitted εγ is computed only from the perturbative running part c^{[5]}_{X;Λ,Λuv}, while the full counterterm coefficient at scale Λ is c^{[5]}_{X,Λ}=c^{[5]}_{X;Λ,Λuv}+c^{[5]}_{X,Λuv}. Setting the UV boundary value to zero is an input assumption, not a renormalization condition, and a nonzero c^{[5]}_{X,Λuv} would add the same Λ-independent shift to the extracted εγ at every cutoff. The demonstrated Λ-independence of the posteriors (Fig. 6) is therefore fully compatible with an arbitrary constant bias in εγ. Thus the claim of unbiased extraction is not a prediction tested by the data; it is equivalent to the assumed vanishing of the UV boundary coefficients.

full rationale

The core Wilsonian derivation is not circular: the running of c^{[3]}_Λ, c^{[5]}_Λ, and c^{[5]}_{X;Λ,Λuv} (Eqs. 4.33, 4.40, 4.48, 4.52, 4.57) is computed analytically from perturbation theory and the linear power spectrum, and the N-body MAP values are an external, same-seed but independent measurement. The bootstrap parametrization is imported from prior work [4,5] with overlapping authors, but it is background for the renormalization procedure, not the load-bearing step that produces the cutoff-independence result. The main circularity concern is the interpretation of the N=5 validation: the higher-derivative correction in Eq. (5.12) explicitly sets the UV boundary values c^{[5]}_{X,Λuv}=0, and no renormalization condition fixes them. Because a nonzero value would shift εγ by a Λ-independent constant, the observed Λ-independence of εγ does not establish unbiasedness; the unbiased-extraction claim reduces to the input assumption. Additionally, the analysis scale k_max is selected in Sec. 6 using the known true εγ ('stop when its deviation from the true value is equal to 1σ'), so the quoted 2.4× precision improvement is a validation metric conditioned on knowing the answer, not a blind-survey forecast. These issues limit the strength of the headline claim but do not invalidate the independent derivation of the RG running; hence a moderate partial-circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on prior bootstrap parameterization, the EdS truncation of high-order kernels, the Wilsonian renormalization scheme, and an approximate field-level likelihood. New inputs are the PT counterterm running computations; the UV boundary values are either fitted to the N-body data (sound speed), assumed zero (higher-derivative operators), or tuned to the known truth (kmax). The bootstrap coefficient εγ itself is a fitted target, not an output of a first-principles derivation.

free parameters (6)
  • εγ = aγ^(2)/aγ,EdS - 1 = ≈ -7.8e-4 at z=1 in ΛCDM (recovered from N-body)
    Target bootstrap coefficient; MAP-fitted from the N-body data via Eqs. (5.8) and (5.10). Its recovery is the paper's central validation.
  • c^[3]_Λ and c^[5]_Λ (sound-speed counterterms) = c^[3]_Λuv/k_nl^2 ≈ 0.5 (h^-1 Mpc)^2 at z=1
    UV boundary values fixed by renormalization conditions on the N-body data; Fig. 3 shifts the PT running curves to match at Λuv.
  • c^[5]_{X,Λuv} (higher-derivative UV coefficients) = 0 (assumed)
    Set to zero in Sec. 5.3; not fixed by any renormalization condition, so a non-zero value would bias εγ by a Λ-independent constant.
  • kmax = 0.09 h/Mpc (N=3), 0.14 h/Mpc (N=5)
    Chosen as the scale where the deviation of εγ from its true value equals 1σ (Sec. 6); this uses the known ΛCDM answer to set the analysis scale.
  • Λuv = 1.07 h/Mpc
    UV cutoff chosen as the largest of the three grid cutoffs; boundary conditions for the running are imposed there.
  • shot-noise density n̄ = 2e-3 (h/Mpc)^3
    Chosen to mimic a Euclid-like survey; not fitted but affects the likelihood and the precision.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Extended Galilean Invariance fixes the β-coupling coefficient to unity in F2 and G2.
    Used in Sec. 2.2, following the bootstrap papers [4,5]; deviations from ΛCDM are parameterized only through aγ^(2) and dγ^(2).
  • domain assumption All PT kernels of order n>2 are set to their EdS values; the dependence of higher-order kernels on aγ^(2) is neglected.
    Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.7), and Appendix A; the authors check at N=3 that this dependence is marginal.
  • domain assumption The hierarchy kmax ≪ knl ≪ Λuv holds at z=1 for the chosen scales.
    Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.3); needed for the Wilsonian integration and the O(k^2/Λuv^2) suppression.
  • domain assumption Initial conditions are Gaussian, and long-wavelength modes φΛ are independent of the integrated-out short modes δφΛ.
    Used in Eqs. (4.19)-(4.23) to evaluate expectation values of the counterterms.
  • domain assumption The counterterm structure at each order is fixed by symmetries (rotational invariance, EGI, momentum conservation); only the listed operators are needed up to N=5.
    Secs. 4.3-4.5, following EFTofLSS [47-49]; sets the form of Δδ^[N]_Λ.
  • domain assumption The field-level likelihood treats Fourier modes as independent Gaussians with constant noise pϵ = 1/n̄.
    Eq. (5.1); ignores non-Gaussian mode coupling and the stochastic counterterm contribution to the covariance.
  • domain assumption Poisson-sampled shot noise is additive and uncorrelated with the matter field.
    Appendix B; standard for galaxy catalogs, and verified numerically in Figs. 8-9.
  • standard math The top-hat filter with the Orszag rule provides a valid regularization of the grid theory.
    Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.1); standard anti-aliasing prescription in spectral codes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Renormalized Perturbation Theory at Field-level: the LSS bootstrap in GridSPT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6O5ET7DO

@misc{pith2026250607105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Renormalized Perturbation Theory at Field-level: the LSS bootstrap in GridSPT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6O5ET7DO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07105}
}
abstract

We present a first step toward field-level cosmological inference beyond the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, focusing on optimizing precision tests in the nonlinear regime of large-scale structure (LSS). As an illustrative case, we study the model-independent ``bootstrap'' coefficient of the second-order perturbation theory (PT) kernel for matter in real space, which we use as a proxy for new physics effects in the nonlinear sector. We discuss in details the ultraviolet (UV) cutoff dependence induced by discretizing fields on a grid, which requires proper renormalization to eliminate grid artifacts. We formulate a Wilsonian perturbative framework in which the evolution from a UV theory defined at a high cutoff $\Lambda_\text{uv}$ down to lower cutoffs is computed analytically, even beyond the validity of a derivative expansion. Within this framework, we develop an extended version of the GridSPT code incorporating the bootstrap parameterization and demonstrate how cutoff-independent predictions can be achieved through the inclusion of appropriate counterterms. We validate our approach at third- and fifth-order in PT, emphasizing the importance of higher-derivative contributions for unbiased parameter extraction. Our framework is readily extendable to biased tracers and redshift-space distortions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Two-loop renormalization and running of galaxy bias

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Galaxy bias renormalization is extended to two loops for the complete fifth-order operator basis, with a single universal function controlling double-hard limits and new two-loop renormalization group equations.

  2. Equivalence of the field-level inference and conventional analyses on large scales

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

    A joint power spectrum, bispectrum and trispectrum analysis achieves the same precision on the density amplitude as field-level inference for halos on large scales.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [5]

    Marinucci, K

    M. Marinucci, K. Pardede and M. Pietroni,Bootstrapping Lagrangian perturbation theory for the large scale structure,JCAP10(2024) 051 [2405.08413]. – 26 – Figure 8. Comparison between the cross power spectrumPX(k)≡ δD(k−k′) (2π)3 ⟨δm(k)δ(k′)⟩with and without noise in ten independent realizations of the noise (pink thin lines), and the auto power spectrum o...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Amendola et al.,Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite,Living Rev

    L. Amendola et al.,Cosmology and fundamental physics with the Euclid satellite,Living Rev. Rel.21(2018) 2 [1606.00180]. [3]Euclidcollaboration, Y. Mellier et al.,Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission,2405.13491

    arXiv 2018

  3. [4]

    D’Amico, M

    G. D’Amico, M. Marinucci, M. Pietroni and F. Vernizzi,The large scale structure bootstrap: perturbation theory and bias expansion from symmetries,JCAP10(2021) 069 [2109.09573]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [6]

    Ansari, A

    A. Ansari, A. Banerjee, S. Jain and S. Lalsodagar,Bootstrapping LSS perturbation theory beyond third order,2504.01078

    arXiv

  5. [7]

    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,JCAP05(2020) 005 [1909.05271]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [8]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological Parameters from the BOSS – 27 – Galaxy Power Spectrum,JCAP05(2020) 042 [1909.05277]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [9]

    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,JCAP05(2024) 059 [2206.08327]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [10]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, G. Cabass, T. Nishimichi, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga, Cosmology with the galaxy bispectrum multipoles: Optimal estimation and application to BOSS data,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 083515 [2302.04414]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 80 references
  1. [11]

    Moradinezhad Dizgah, H

    A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, H. Lee, M. Schmittfull and C. Dvorkin,Capturing non-Gaussianity of the large-scale structure with weighted skew-spectra,JCAP04(2020) 011 [1911.05763]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [12]

    O. H. E. Philcox, E. Massara and D. N. Spergel,What does the marked power spectrum measure? Insights from perturbation theory,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 043516 [2006.10055]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [13]

    Massara, F

    E. Massara, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, S. Ho, N. Dalal and D. N. Spergel,Using the Marked Power Spectrum to Detect the Signature of Neutrinos in Large-Scale Structure,Phys. Rev. Lett. 126(2021) 011301 [2001.11024]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [14]

    W. R. Coulton, T. Abel and A. Banerjee,Small-scale signatures of primordial non-Gaussianity in k-nearest neighbour cumulative distribution functions,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.534 (2024) 1621 [2309.15151]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Valogiannis and C

    G. Valogiannis and C. Dvorkin,Towards an optimal estimation of cosmological parameters with the wavelet scattering transform,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 103534 [2108.07821]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Eickenberg et al.,Wavelet Moments for Cosmological Parameter Estimation,2204.07646

    M. Eickenberg et al.,Wavelet Moments for Cosmological Parameter Estimation,2204.07646

    arXiv

  7. [17]

    Valogiannis, S

    G. Valogiannis, S. Yuan and C. Dvorkin,Precise cosmological constraints from BOSS galaxy clustering with a simulation-based emulator of the wavelet scattering transform,Phys. Rev. D 109(2024) 103503 [2310.16116]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Peron, G

    M. Peron, G. Jung, M. Liguori and M. Pietroni,Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity from large scale structure with the wavelet scattering transform,JCAP07(2024) 021 [2403.17657]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [19]

    Marinucci et al.,The constraining power of the Marked Power Spectrum: an analytical study,2411.14377

    M. Marinucci et al.,The constraining power of the Marked Power Spectrum: an analytical study,2411.14377. [20]Beyond-2ptcollaboration, E. Krause et al.,A Parameter-Masked Mock Data Challenge for Beyond-Two-Point Galaxy Clustering Statistics,2405.02252

    arXiv

  10. [21]

    Jasche and B

    J. Jasche and B. D. Wandelt,Bayesian physical reconstruction of initial conditions from large-scale structure surveys,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society432(2013) 894 [1203.3639]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [22]

    F. S. Kitaura,The initial conditions of the universe from constrained simulations,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society429(2013) L84 [1203.4184]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [23]

    H. Wang, H. J. Mo, X. Yang and F. C. van den Bosch,Reconstructing the initial density field of the local universe: Methods and tests with mock catalogs,The Astrophysical Journal772 (2013) 63 [1301.1348]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [24]

    H. Wang, H. J. Mo, X. Yang, Y. P. Jing and W. P. Lin,Elucid - exploring the local universe with reconstructed initial density field i: Hamiltonian markov chain monte carlo method with particle mesh dynamics,The Astrophysical Journal794(2014) 94 [1407.3451]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [25]

    Jasche and G

    J. Jasche and G. Lavaux,Physical bayesian modelling of the non-linear matter distribution: new insights into the nearby universe,Astronomy & Astrophysics625(2019) A64 [1806.11117]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [26]

    Lavaux, J

    G. Lavaux, J. Jasche and F. Leclercq,Systematic-free inference of the cosmic matter density field from sdss3-boss data,1909.06396. – 28 –

    1909 arXiv

  16. [27]

    Schmidt, F

    F. Schmidt, F. Elsner, J. Jasche, N. M. Nguyen and G. Lavaux,A rigorous eft-based forward model for large-scale structure,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics1901(2019) 042 [1808.02002]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [28]

    C. Modi, Y. Li and D. Blei,Reconstructing the universe with variational self-boosted sampling, inProceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2022,2206.15433

    2022 arXiv

  18. [29]

    Kostić, N.-M

    A. Kostić, N.-M. Nguyen, F. Schmidt and M. Reinecke,Consistency tests of field level inference with the eft likelihood,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(2023) 063 [2212.07875]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Andrews, J

    A. Andrews, J. Jasche, G. Lavaux and F. Schmidt,Bayesian field-level inference of primordial non-gaussianity using next-generation galaxy surveys,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society520(2023) 5746 [2203.08838]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [31]

    A. E. Bayer, U. Seljak and C. Modi,Field-level inference with microcanonical langevin monte carlo, July, 2023

    2023

  21. [32]

    Doeser, D

    L. Doeser, D. Jamieson, S. Stopyra, G. Lavaux, F. Leclercq and J. Jasche,Bayesian inference of initial conditions from non-linear cosmic structures using field-level emulators,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society535(2024) 1258 [2312.09271]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [33]

    Nguyen, F

    N.-M. Nguyen, F. Schmidt, B. Tucci, M. Reinecke and A. Kostić,How much information can be extracted from galaxy clustering at the field level?,Physical Review Letters133(2024) 221006 [2403.03220]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [34]

    McQuinn,On the primordial information available to galaxy redshift surveys,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(2021) 024 [2008.12312]

    M. McQuinn,On the primordial information available to galaxy redshift surveys,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(2021) 024 [2008.12312]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [35]

    Leclercq and A

    F. Leclercq and A. Heavens,On the accuracy and precision of correlation functions and field-level inference in cosmology,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society506 (2021) L85 [2103.04158]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [36]

    Porqueres, A

    N. Porqueres, A. Heavens, D. Mortlock and G. Lavaux,Lifting weak lensing degeneracies with a field-based likelihood,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society509(2022) 3194 [2108.04825]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [37]

    Porth, G

    L. Porth, G. M. Bernstein, R. E. Smith and A. J. Lee,The information content of projected galaxy fields,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518(2023) 3344 [2111.13702]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [38]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological information in perturbative forward modeling,Physical Review D109(2024) 043526 [2307.04706]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Schmidt,On the Connection between Field-Level Inference andn-point Correlation Functions,2504.15351

    F. Schmidt,On the Connection between Field-Level Inference andn-point Correlation Functions,2504.15351

  29. [40]

    Taruya, T

    A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and D. Jeong,Grid-based calculation for perturbation theory of large-scale structure,Physical Review D98(2018) 103532 [1807.04215]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Taruya, T

    A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and D. Jeong,Covariance of the matter power spectrum including the survey window function effect: N-body simulations versus fifth-order perturbation theory on grids,Physical Review D103(2021) 023501 [2007.05504]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [44]

    S. M. Carroll, S. Leichenauer and J. Pollack,A Consistent Effective Theory of Long-Wavelength Cosmological Perturbations,1310.2920. – 29 –

    arXiv

  32. [45]

    Rubira and F

    H. Rubira and F. Schmidt,Galaxy bias renormalization group,JCAP01(2024) 031 [2307.15031]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [46]

    Nikolis, H

    C. Nikolis, H. Rubira and F. Schmidt,The renormalization group for large-scale structure: primordial non-Gaussianities,JCAP08(2024) 017 [2405.21002]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [47]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological Non-Linearities as an Effective Fluid,JCAP1207(2012) 051 [1004.2488]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [48]

    Pietroni, G

    M. Pietroni, G. Mangano, N. Saviano and M. Viel,Coarse-Grained Cosmological Perturbation Theory,JCAP1201(2012) 019 [1108.5203]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [49]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, M. P. Hertzberg and L. Senatore,The Effective Field Theory of Cosmological Large Scale Structures,JHEP1209(2012) 082 [1206.2926]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [50]

    L. Piga, M. Marinucci, G. D’Amico, M. Pietroni, F. Vernizzi and B. S. Wright,Constraints on modified gravity from the BOSS galaxy survey,JCAP04(2023) 038 [2211.12523]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [51]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga and R. Scoccimarro,Large scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory,Phys. Rept.367(2002) 1 [astro-ph/0112551]

    2002 arXiv

  39. [52]

    Pietroni,Flowing with Time: a New Approach to Nonlinear Cosmological Perturbations, JCAP10(2008) 036 [0806.0971]

    M. Pietroni,Flowing with Time: a New Approach to Nonlinear Cosmological Perturbations, JCAP10(2008) 036 [0806.0971]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [53]

    Donath and L

    Y. Donath and L. Senatore,Biased Tracers in Redshift Space in the EFTofLSS with exact time dependence,JCAP10(2020) 039 [2005.04805]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [54]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-Scale Galaxy Bias,1611.09787

    arXiv

  42. [55]

    Z. Wang, D. Jeong, A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and K. Osato,Perturbation theory remixed: Improved nonlinearity modeling beyond standard perturbation theory,Physical Review D107 (2023) 103534 [2209.00033]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [56]

    Z. Wang, D. Jeong, A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and K. Osato,Perturbation theory remixed. ii. improved modeling of nonlinear bispectrum,Physical Review D110(2024) 103548 [2408.06413]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [57]

    Taruya, T

    A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and D. Jeong,Grid-based calculations of redshift-space matter fluctuations from perturbation theory: UV sensitivity and convergence at the field level,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 103507 [2109.06734]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [58]

    S. A. Orszag,Atmospheric predictability and two-dimensional turbulence,Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences28(1971) 1074

    1971

  46. [59]

    K. G. Wilson,The Renormalization Group: Critical Phenomena and the Kondo Problem,Rev. Mod. Phys.47(1975) 773

    1975

  47. [60]

    Polchinski,Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians,Nucl

    J. Polchinski,Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians,Nucl. Phys. B231(1984) 269. [61]Planckcollaboration, P. Ade et al.,Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, 1502.01589

    1984 arXiv

  48. [62]

    Ali-Haïmoud and S

    Y. Ali-Haïmoud and S. Bird,An efficient implementation of massive neutrinos in non-linear structure formation simulations,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society428(2012) 3375–3389

    2012

  49. [63]

    Scoccimarro,Transients from initial conditions: a perturbative analysis,Mon

    R. Scoccimarro,Transients from initial conditions: a perturbative analysis,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.299(1998) 1097 [astro-ph/9711187]

    1998 arXiv

  50. [64]

    Crocce, S

    M. Crocce, S. Pueblas and R. Scoccimarro,Transients from Initial Conditions in Cosmological Simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.373(2006) 369 [astro-ph/0606505]

    2006 arXiv

  51. [65]

    D. Blas, J. Lesgourgues and T. Tram,The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) II: Approximation schemes,JCAP1107(2011) 034 [1104.2933]. – 30 –

    2011 arXiv

  52. [66]

    Iwasawa, A

    M. Iwasawa, A. Tanikawa, N. Hosono, K. Nitadori, T. Muranushi and J. Makino, Implementation and performance of FDPS: a framework for developing parallel particle simulation codes, PASJ68(2016) 54 [1601.03138]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [67]

    Namekata, M

    D. Namekata, M. Iwasawa, K. Nitadori, A. Tanikawa, T. Muranushi, L. Wang et al.,Fortran interface layer of the framework for developing particle simulator FDPS, PASJ70(2018) 70 [1804.08935]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [68]

    Yoshikawa and T

    K. Yoshikawa and T. Fukushige,PPPM and TreePM Methods on GRAPE Systems for Cosmological N-Body Simulations, PASJ57(2005) 849 [astro-ph/0504095]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [69]

    Ishiyama, T

    T. Ishiyama, T. Fukushige and J. Makino,GreeM: Massively Parallel TreePM Code for Large Cosmological N -body Simulations, PASJ61(2009) 1319 [0910.0121]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [70]

    Ishiyama, K

    T. Ishiyama, K. Nitadori and J. Makino,4.45 Pflops Astrophysical N-Body Simulation on K computer – The Gravitational Trillion-Body Problem,arXiv e-prints(2012) arXiv:1211.4406 [1211.4406]

    2012 arXiv

  57. [71]

    Tanikawa, K

    A. Tanikawa, K. Yoshikawa, T. Okamoto and K. Nitadori,N-body simulation for self-gravitating collisional systems with a new SIMD instruction set extension to the x86 architecture, Advanced Vector eXtensions, New A17(2012) 82 [1104.2700]

    2012 arXiv

  58. [72]

    Tanikawa, K

    A. Tanikawa, K. Yoshikawa, K. Nitadori and T. Okamoto,Phantom-GRAPE: Numerical software library to accelerate collisionless N-body simulation with SIMD instruction set on x86 architecture, New A19(2013) 74 [1203.4037]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [73]

    Yoshikawa and A

    K. Yoshikawa and A. Tanikawa,Phantom-GRAPE : A Fast Numerical Library to Perform N-body Calculations,Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society2(2018) 231

    2018

  60. [74]

    R. W. Hockney and J. W. Eastwood,Computer Simulation Using Particles. Taylor and Francis, 1981

    1981

  61. [75]

    Baldauf, L

    T. Baldauf, L. Mercolli and M. Zaldarriaga,Effective field theory of large scale structure at two loops: The apparent scale dependence of the speed of sound,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 123007 [1507.02256]

    2015 arXiv

  62. [76]

    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

  63. [77]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, D. Green and M. Zaldarriaga,Renormalized Halo Bias,JCAP08 (2014) 056 [1402.5916]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [78]

    Obuljen, M

    A. Obuljen, M. Simonović, A. Schneider and R. Feldmann,Modeling HI at the field level,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 083528 [2207.12398]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [79]

    Stadler, F

    J. Stadler, F. Schmidt, M. Reinecke and M. Esposito,Fast, Accurate and Perturbative Forward Modeling of Galaxy Clustering Part II: Redshift Space,2411.04513

  66. [80]

    Scoccimarro,Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities and nonlinearities,Phys.Rev

    R. Scoccimarro,Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities and nonlinearities,Phys.Rev. D70(2004) 083007 [astro-ph/0407214]

    2004 arXiv

  67. [81]

    Taruya, T

    A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi and S. Saito,Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in 2D: Modeling Redshift- space Power Spectrum from Perturbation Theory,Phys. Rev.D82(2010) 063522 [1006.0699]

    2010 arXiv

  68. [82]

    Eggemeier, N

    A. Eggemeier, N. Lee, R. Scoccimarro, B. Camacho-Quevedo, A. Pezzotta, M. Crocce et al., Boosting galaxy clustering analyses with non-perturbative modelling of redshift-space distortions,2501.18597

    arXiv

  69. [83]

    Neal,Probabilistic inference using markov chain monte carlo methods, Tech

    R. Neal,Probabilistic inference using markov chain monte carlo methods, Tech. Rep. CRG-TR-93-1, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1993

    1993

  70. [84]

    Neal,Slice sampling (with discussion),Ann

    R. Neal,Slice sampling (with discussion),Ann. Stat.31(2003) 705. – 31 –

    2003

  71. [85]

    R. M. Neal,Mcmc using hamiltonian dynamics, inHandbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. L. Jones and X.-L. Meng, eds.), pp. 113–162. CRC Press, 2011

    2011

  72. [86]

    H. A. Feldman, N. Kaiser and J. A. Peacock,Power spectrum analysis of three-dimensional redshift surveys,The Astrophysical Journal426(1994) 23 [astro-ph/9304022]. – 32 –

    1994 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.