Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Constraining Dynamical Dark Energy from Galaxy Clustering with Simulation-Based Priors

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding BOSS galaxy clustering data to DESI, Planck, and Pantheon+ removes the reported preference for dynamical dark energy, and simulation-based priors tighten the dark energy constraint by about 20 percent.

desk verdict A real technical advance in EFT-SBP, with a solid but over-claimed physical conclusion; the SBP-induced shrinkage toward LCDM is the weak link. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00118 v1 pith:LXIOPZ3S submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.CO

Shu-Fan Chen , Mikhail M. Ivanov This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords dynamicaldarkenergyw0-waparametrizationgalaxyclusteringfull-shapeanalysiseffectivefieldtheoryoflarge-scalestructuresimulation-basedpriorsGaussianmixturemodelBOSSsurveyDESIBAO
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

DESI's combination of baryon acoustic oscillations, Planck CMB data, and Pantheon+ supernovae has been reported to prefer dark energy that changes with time. This paper tests that preference by adding BOSS galaxy clustering data modeled with effective-field-theory perturbation theory, and it claims that the preference disappears once BOSS full-shape power spectrum and bispectrum information is included. The paper goes further: nuisance parameters describing galaxy bias and small-scale noise are constrained by priors measured from mock galaxies, and this additional information shrinks the $w_0$-$w_a$ posterior around the cosmological-constant point, making $w_0=-1$ and $w_a=0$ consistent at 95% confidence. The technical enabler is a Gaussian mixture model approximation of the simulation-based prior, which keeps the likelihood analytically marginalizable and makes the combined analysis computationally practical. If right, the paper undercuts the dynamical dark energy interpretation of DESI data and gives future full-shape analyses a fast way to use simulation-based priors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a Gaussian mixture model fit to the simulation-based prior distribution of EFT nuisance parameters. In the one-loop EFT model, eight of the eleven nuisance parameters—the cubic bias $b_{\Gamma_3}$, the redshift-space counterterms $c_{s,0}$, $c_{s,2}$, $c_{s,4}$, the higher-derivative term $b_4$, and the stochastic parameters $P_{\mathrm{shot}}$, $a_0$, $a_2$—enter the prediction linearly, so the likelihood is quadratic in them. For a single Gaussian prior, those parameters can be marginalized analytically; the paper extends the same analytic marginalization to a weighted sum of $K$ Gaussian components ($K = 3, 6, 10$), so the simulation-based prior, which is non-Gaussian and skewed, is captured without explicitly sampling all nuisance parameters. This is what makes the otherwise expensive joint run with Planck, Pantheon+, and DESI BAO feasible, and it is what converts the prior samples from HOD mocks into a posterior that is tighter around $\Lambda$CDM.

What would settle it

Recalibrate the simulation-based prior from HOD mocks generated in a cosmology with $w_0$ and $w_a$ fixed away from $-1$ and $0$ (for example at the DESI best-fit values), then rerun the same joint likelihood; if the $w_0$-$w_a$ posterior moves toward those injected values, the prior is not cosmology-independent and the reported shift to $\Lambda$CDM is not purely data-driven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the reported hint for dynamical dark energy is not robust: when the DESI DR2 BAO, Planck, and Pantheon+ data are analyzed together with the BOSS EFT full-shape galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum likelihood, the $w_0$-$w_a$ posterior returns to the cosmological constant region. With the simulation-based priors modeled as a Gaussian mixture, the posterior contracts further: $w_0$ moves toward $-1$, $w_a$ moves toward $0$, the $\Lambda$CDM point lies within the 95% credible region, and the figure of merit, defined as $\mathrm{FoM} = 1/\sqrt{\det\mathrm{Cov}(w_0,w_a)}$, improves by approximately 20% relative to the conservative EFT prior. The authors interpret this as evidence that the field-level simulation-based priors carry useful small-scale information that reduces degeneracies between cosmological parameters and galaxy nuisance parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation-based priors, derived from haloes and galaxies simulated in a $\Lambda$CDM universe and tuned to look like BOSS, correctly describe galaxy bias and small-scale noise for the real Universe regardless of the true dark energy model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, the DESI BAO+CMB+SNe preference for $w_0$ and $w_a$ away from $\Lambda$CDM reflects a dataset combination issue rather than a robust detection of dynamical dark energy.
  • The BOSS full-shape likelihood with field-level simulation-based priors becomes a standard tool for non-minimal cosmological models, since analytic marginalization removes the main computational bottleneck.
  • The reported approximately 20% improvement in the $w_0$-$w_a$ figure of merit should be interpreted as a conservative gain; the comparison with a single Gaussian prior shows that the usual shortcut would miss part of this information.
  • The $w_0$-$w_a$ constraints are consistent with the cosmological constant within 95% confidence, so an extended dark energy model is currently not required by the combined data sets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable implication the paper leaves implicit: the shift toward $\Lambda$CDM could partly inherit the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology used to generate the HOD mocks, so a cross-check is to recalibrate the simulation-based priors from simulations run in a $w_0w_a$ cosmology.
  • If the same field-level priors are applied to DESI's own full-shape data, which the paper explicitly leaves for future work, the figure-of-merit gain may be larger than 20% because DESI has greater volume than BOSS; this is a prediction of the method rather than a result reported here.
  • The GMM convergence check, in which the figure of merit changes by less than 4% between 6 and 10 components, tests stability within the Gaussian mixture family but not fidelity to the true simulation prior, so independent normalizing-flow-based sampling remains a useful validation as data errors shrink.
  • A broader consequence: because simulation-based priors shrink nuisance parameter posteriors without strongly reweighting cosmological parameters, they could also sharpen constraints on other cosmological parameters, such as neutrino mass or curvature, in the same combined-data setup.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Gaussian-mixture-model (GMM) approximation to simulation-based priors (SBPs) on effective-field-theory (EFT) nuisance parameters in galaxy-clustering full-shape analyses, preserving the ability to marginalize analytically over the linearly entering parameters. It applies this method to a joint analysis of BOSS DR12 power spectrum, bispectrum, and BAO data combined with Planck 2018 CMB, Pantheon+ supernovae, and DESI DR2 BAO, and reports two main results: (i) adding BOSS full-shape data removes the dynamical-dark-energy preference seen in DESI+CMB+SNe, and (ii) the simulation-based prior further shrinks the w0-wa posterior around the cosmological constant and improves the dark-energy figure of merit by roughly 20%.

Significance. If both claims hold, the paper is a valuable methodological and phenomenological contribution: it makes SBP analyses analytically tractable via GMMs and shows that high-precision BOSS full-shape data disfavor the dynamical-dark-energy interpretation of DESI DR2. The use of public BOSS likelihoods, the convergence checks across GMM3/GMM6/GMM10, and the normalizing-flow comparison in Appendix A are concrete strengths. The central quantitative claim of a ~20% figure-of-merit gain is, however, conditional on the SBP being transferable from Lambda-CDM HOD mocks to the general w0-wa cosmologies explored in the chains, and the paper does not demonstrate that transferability.

major comments (2)
  1. [2.1, 4, 5] The simulation-based prior is taken from HOD mock catalogs of Ref. [34] generated at a fiducial Lambda-CDM cosmology, and the GMM trained on those samples is then applied to chains that vary w0 and wa. No test of the cosmology dependence of the EFT parameter distribution is provided. Because Table I and Table II attribute the shift of wa toward 0 and the ~20% FoM improvement to the SBP, the distinct claim that the SBP 'further weakens the case for dynamical dark energy' (abstract and Section 5) could be partly prior-driven rather than data-driven. This is a transferability/calibration gap, not an internal inconsistency; it should be closed by recalibrating the prior from mocks at several non-Lambda-CDM cosmologies or by demonstrating that the EFT prior is approximately cosmology-independent over the explored range. Without such a test, the SBP-based conclusions should be softened.
  2. [4, Fig. 3, Table I] The abstract states that the dynamical-dark-energy preference 'disappears' once BOSS full-shape is added, but the support is only the 95% credible region of the w0-wa posterior; no Bayes factor, evidence ratio, or Delta-chi-squared is reported. The baseline DESI+CMB+SNe hint is itself only at the ~2.7-sigma level in this paper, so a quantitative model-comparison statistic is needed to justify the 'disappears' language and to compare the conservative-prior and SBP rows of Table I. Similarly, the 20% FoM gain in Table II is given without an uncertainty or a sensitivity estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3] There is a typo in Section 3: 'In each two regions, the we have mixed samples' should be corrected.
  2. [4] The text says the Gelman-Rubin statistics satisfies R < 0.01; since R is always at least 1, this should read R-1 < 0.01.
  3. [Table II, Section 4] GMM3 has a higher FoM (268.21) than GMM10 (248.81), yet the text claims convergence between GMM6 and GMM10 and dismisses GMM3 as a numerical artifact; a brief quantitative explanation of why GMM3 is not the preferred model would strengthen the convergence argument.
  4. [Fig. 1] Some panels in the triangle plot lack readable axis labels, and the legend uses 'Normalizing Flow' while Fig. 4 uses 'SBP Normalizing Flow'; the figures should be made consistent and self-explanatory.
  5. [3] The selection of DESI DR2 BAO samples with z > 0.75 and the exact overlap-removal procedure with BOSS are described only briefly; listing the specific samples (LRG, ELG, QSO) and their redshift cuts would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main claim is established by the conservative-prior BOSS full-shape analysis, independent of the simulation-based priors; the SBP is an external, simulation-calibrated input rather than a fit to the w0-wa posterior.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The headline physical claim — that adding BOSS EFT full-shape to DESI+Planck+Pantheon+ removes the preference for dynamical dark energy — is established by the conservative-prior row of Table I (w0 = -0.884 ± 0.056, wa = -0.342 +0.220/-0.191), which does not use the simulation-based priors at all; the SBP is an additional ingredient used only for the secondary "further weakens" and 20% FoM statements. The SBP is not defined in terms of w0 or wa: Section 2.1 imports a distribution over EFT bias, counterterm, and stochastic parameters measured from HOD mocks [34], Section 2.3 approximates it with a GMM, and Eq. (29) is standard Bayesian marginalization; no equation sets w0 or wa equal to a fitted quantity. The FoM gain in Table II is the expected consequence of an informative nuisance-parameter prior, not a self-prediction. The Lambda-CDM fiducial cosmology of the HOD mocks is a transferability/systematic concern — if EFT parameters were cosmology-dependent over the w0-wa range, part of the SBP shift toward Lambda-CDM would be prior-driven — but this is not a reduction by construction, and the main result is independent of it. Self-citations [32-34] are transparent (the similarity to Ref. [32] is explicitly acknowledged) and are not used as a uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a standard EFT full-shape likelihood, a number of fitted nuisance parameters, and a new GMM approximation to a simulation-based prior. The most important ledger items are the unreported GMM component parameters and the assumption that HOD mocks generated under Lambda-CDM provide unbiased priors when testing w0-wa cosmologies.

free parameters (4)
  • w0, wa (target dark energy parameters) = w0 = -0.911 +0.052/-0.055, wa = -0.094 +0.188/-0.170 (GMM10)
    The central claim is about the posteriors of these parameters; they are measured from data, not independently predicted. Values quoted from Table I for the GMM10 configuration.
  • GMM10 components (weights, means, covariances) = not reported
    The simulation-based prior is approximated by fitting 10 Gaussian components to HOD samples from Ref. [34]. The fitted mixture parameters are not listed, so the exact prior used cannot be reconstructed from this paper alone.
  • Scale cuts = k_Pell <= 0.20, k_Q0 in [0.20, 0.40], k_B0 <= 0.08 h/Mpc
    Chosen from previous validation rather than derived; they control how much nonlinear data enter the likelihood and therefore affect the dark energy constraints.
  • EFT nuisance and bias parameters = marginalized; includes b1, b2, bG2 per patch and bGamma3, Pshot, a0, a2, cs0, cs2, cs4, b4, c1, Bshot
    These are the many fitted nuisance parameters of the EFT full-shape likelihood; only some are shown in Table I. Their priors, whether conservative or simulation-based, shape the final w0-wa contours.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The one-loop EFT bias expansion in Eq. (1) is a valid model for BOSS power spectrum and bispectrum over the chosen k ranges.
    Section 2.1 and the scale cuts in Section 3a; this is the standard EFT approach, but its validity at k=0.20 for P and k=0.08 for B is assumed from previous validation rather than re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The BOSS likelihood is Gaussian with covariance estimated from 2048 MultiDark Patchy mocks.
    Section 3a; this is the standard BOSS covariance, and any inaccuracy in the mock covariance propagates into the w0-wa contours.
  • ad hoc to paper HOD galaxy samples of Ref. [34] give unbiased EFT parameter priors for BOSS galaxies, independent of the Lambda-CDM fiducial cosmology used in the simulations.
    Section 2 and Section 5; this is the load-bearing assumption behind the SBP-driven 20 percent FoM improvement and the shift toward Lambda-CDM.
  • domain assumption GMM10 accurately approximates the true simulation-based prior and is converged, as indicated by agreement between GMM6 and GMM10.
    Section 2.3 and Table II; no formal convergence diagnostic for the GMM approximation to the prior is given beyond visual comparison and FoM changes.
  • domain assumption DESI BAO data with z > 0.75 and the BOSS data do not overlap significantly after the conservative redshift cut.
    Section 3d; this cut avoids double counting but removes low-redshift DESI BAO information, which affects the combined dark energy constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining Dynamical Dark Energy from Galaxy Clustering with Simulation-Based Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXIOPZ3S

@misc{pith2026250700118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining Dynamical Dark Energy from Galaxy Clustering with Simulation-Based Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXIOPZ3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00118}
}
abstract

The effective-field theory based full-shape analysis with simulation-based priors (EFT-SBP) is the novel analysis of galaxy clustering data that allows one to combine merits of perturbation theory and simulation-based modeling in a unified framework. In this paper we use EFT-SBP with the galaxy clustering power spectrum and bispectrum data from BOSS in order to test the recent preference for dynamical dark energy reported by the DESI collaboration. While dynamical dark energy is preferred by the combination of DESI baryon acoustic oscillation, \textit{Planck} Cosmic Microwave Background, and Pantheon+ supernovae data, we show that this preference disappears once these data sets are combined with the usual BOSS EFT galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum likelihood. The use of the simulation-based priors in this analysis further weakens the case for dynamical dark energy by additionally shrinking the parameter posterior around the cosmological constant region. Specifically, the figure of merit of the dynamical dark energy constraints from the combined data set improves by $\approx 20\%$ over the usual EFT-full-shape analysis with the conservative priors. These results are made possible with a novel modeling approach to the EFT prior distribution with the Gaussian mixture models, which allows us to both accurately capture the EFT priors and retain the ability to analytically marginalize the likelihood over most of the EFT nuisance parameters. Our results challenge the dynamical dark energy interpretation of the DESI data and enable future EFT-SBP analyses of BOSS and DESI in the context of non-minimal cosmological models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00118 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Triangle plot comparing the simulation-based prior (purple filled contours) with several analytic density approximations: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Triangle plot comparing the posterior distribution for selected cosmological and bias parameters under different prior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Constraints on cosmological parameters under different analysis configurations. The left panel shows the 2D 68% and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Triangle plot showing marginalized posterior distributions and 2D credible regions for cosmological parameters and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Simulation-Based Priors for HI Bias from Halo Occupation Physics

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

    A conditional normalizing flow learned from two simulation suites maps HI halo-occupation parameters to EFT bias parameters, producing correlated non-Gaussian priors that are much tighter than flat priors for 21 cm analyses.

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

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

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

  3. Reanalyzing DESI DR1: 4. Percent-Level Cosmological Constraints from Combined Probes and Robust Evidence for the Normal Neutrino Mass Hierarchy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A combined-analysis of DESI galaxy clustering, CMB lensing, BAO, CMB, and supernovae yields percent-level Lambda-CDM parameters, improved dark-energy figure-of-merit, and neutrino-mass bounds that disfavor the inverte...

  4. Low-redshift constraints on structure growth from CMB lensing tomography

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Low-redshift galaxy clustering and CMB lensing tomography with hybrid effective field theory gives S8=0.79±0.06, consistent with Planck, while data alone prefer Ωm=0.245±0.024.

  5. 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

104 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [32]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 05, 042 (2020), arXiv:1909.05277 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [34]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, and M. White, JCAP 02, 008 (2022), arXiv:2110.05530 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    INTRODUCTION The standard cosmological model, inflationary ΛCDM, provides a first approximation to the basic properties and the evolution of our Universe. This model assumes the presence of three new physics entities: the expo- nential primordial accelerated expansion of the Universe (dubbed cosmic inflation), the cosmological constant to explain the curr...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    For instance, even at the level of the power spec- trum alone, there are eleven EFT nuisance parameters that must be marginalized over to constrain cosmological parameters

    THE DISTRIBUTION OF EFT P ARAMETERS AS A GAUSSIAN MIXTURE Incorporating the simulation-based prior for nuisance parameters within the EFT framework presents a signif- icant challenge due to the sheer number of such param- eters. For instance, even at the level of the power spec- trum alone, there are eleven EFT nuisance parameters that must be marginalize...

  5. [3]

    We will present the detail of each experiment here and explain the pa- rameters varied in this section

    DA T ASETS In our main analysis, we consider joint analysis of four different datasets: BOSS DR12 galaxy clustering, Planck 2018, Pantheon+, and DESI DR2 BAO. We will present the detail of each experiment here and explain the pa- rameters varied in this section. a. BOSS DR12 Galaxy Clustering. The BOSS DR12 galaxy survey [17, 74] contains galaxies observe...

    2018

  6. [4]

    Gaussian

    RESUL TS We present our main result in Table I and Fig. 2, which summarize the inferred values of galaxy bias pa- rameters ( b(i) 1 , b(i) 2 , and b(i) G2 ) across four patches of sky from BOSS galaxy survey, along with constraints on cos- mological parameters ( w0, wa, Ω m, σ8, and h). These constraints are derived from a joint analysis combining BOSS DR...

    2018

  7. [5]

    DISCUSSION Let us start our discussion with the physical interpreta- tion of our results. First, we show that the CMB+DESI BAO+ Pantheon+ SNe evidence for dynamical dark en- ergy is significantly reduced once this dataset is com- bined with the full-shape galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum data from the BOSS survey. A similar con- clusion was drawn befo...

  8. [6]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP 02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 104 references
  1. [7]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Abdul Karim et al

    M. Abdul Karim et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]. 15

    2025 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Lodha et al

    K. Lodha et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Laureijs et al

    R. Laureijs et al. (EUCLID), (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Ivezi´ cet al

    v. Ivezi´ cet al. (LSST), Astrophys. J. 873, 111 (2019), arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Akeson et al., (2019), arXiv:1902.05569 [astro-ph.IM]

    R. Akeson et al., (2019), arXiv:1902.05569 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [13]

    McAlpine et al

    S. McAlpine et al. , Astron. Comput. 15, 72 (2016), arXiv:1510.01320 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Springel et al., Mon

    V. Springel et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475, 676 (2018), arXiv:1707.03397 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Hern´ andez-Aguayoet al., Mon

    C. Hern´ andez-Aguayoet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 2556 (2023), arXiv:2210.10059 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [16]

    A. A. Berlind and D. H. Weinberg, Astrophys. J. 575, 587 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0109001

    2002 arXiv

  11. [17]

    A. V. Kravtsov, A. A. Berlind, R. H. Wechsler, A. A. Klypin, S. Gottloeber, B. Allgood, and J. R. Primack, Astrophys. J. 609, 35 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0308519

    2004 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Zheng, A

    Z. Zheng, A. A. Berlind, D. H. Weinberg, A. J. Benson, C. M. Baugh, S. Cole, R. Dave, C. S. Frenk, N. Katz, and C. G. Lacey, Astrophys. J. 633, 791 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0408564

    2005

  13. [19]

    A. P. Hearin, A. R. Zentner, F. C. van den Bosch, D. Campbell, and E. Tollerud, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 2552 (2016), arXiv:1512.03050 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [20]

    R. H. Wechsler and J. L. Tinker, Ann. Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 56, 435 (2018), arXiv:1804.03097 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Krause et al

    E. Krause et al. (Beyond-2pt), (2024), arXiv:2405.02252 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Kobayashi, T

    Y. Kobayashi, T. Nishimichi, M. Takada, and H. Miyatake, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083517 (2022), arXiv:2110.06969 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Cuesta-Lazaro et al., (2023), arXiv:2309.16539 [astro- ph.CO]

    C. Cuesta-Lazaro et al., (2023), arXiv:2309.16539 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Valogiannis, S

    G. Valogiannis, S. Yuan, and C. Dvorkin, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103503 (2024), arXiv:2310.16116 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    C. Hahn, M. Eickenberg, S. Ho, J. Hou, P. Lemos, E. Massara, C. Modi, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, L. Parker, and B. R.-S. Blancard, (2023), arXiv:2310.15243 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [27]

    J. Hou, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, C. Hahn, M. Eicken- berg, S. Ho, P. Lemos, E. Massara, C. Modi, L. Parker, and B. R.-S. Blancard, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103528 (2024), arXiv:2401.15074 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldar- riaga, JCAP 1207, 051 (2012), arXiv:1004.2488 [astro- ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [29]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, M. P. Hertzberg, and L. Senatore, JHEP 09, 082 (2012), arXiv:1206.2926 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [30]

    M. M. Ivanov, (2022), arXiv:2212.08488 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt, Phys. Rept. 733, 1 (2018), arXiv:1611.09787 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    D’Amico, J

    G. D’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, D. Markovic, L. Sen- atore, P. Zhang, F. Beutler, and H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, (2019), arXiv:1909.05271 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043517 (2022), arXiv:2112.04515 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, G. Cabass, T. Nishimichi, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083515 (2023), arXiv:2302.04414 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S.-F. Chen, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and L. Wenzl, (2024), arXiv:2406.13388 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. M. Ivanov, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, S. Mishra-Sharma, A. Obuljen, and M. W. Toomey, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063538 (2024), arXiv:2402.13310 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. M. Ivanov, A. Obuljen, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, and M. W. Toomey, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063548 (2025), arXiv:2409.10609 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cabass, O

    G. Cabass, O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, K. Akitsu, S.-F. Chen, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2024), arXiv:2404.01894 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. M. Ivanov et al. , (2024), arXiv:2412.01888 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M. M. Ivanov, (2025), arXiv:2503.07270 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. M. Sullivan, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, M. M. Ivanov, Y. Ni, S. Bose, B. Hadzhiyska, C. Hern´ andez-Aguayo, L. Hern- quist, and R. Kannan, (2025), arXiv:2505.03626 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. M. Sullivan, U. Seljak, and S. Singh, JCAP 11, 026 (2021), arXiv:2104.10676 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Obuljen, M

    A. Obuljen, M. Simonovi´ c, A. Schneider, and R. Feldmann, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083528 (2023), arXiv:2207.12398 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Modi and O

    C. Modi and O. H. E. Philcox, (2023), arXiv:2309.10270 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Akitsu, (2024), arXiv:2410.08998 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Akitsu, (2024), arXiv:2410.08998 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Bonici, G. D’Amico, S. Paradiso, and W. J. Percival, JCAP 04, 041 (2025), arXiv:2409.12937 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhang et al

    H. Zhang et al. (DESI), (2025), arXiv:2504.10407 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang, C

    G. Zhang, C. Modi, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2505.13591 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Schmittfull, M

    M. Schmittfull, M. Simonovi´ c, V. Assassi, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043514 (2019), 16 arXiv:1811.10640 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Schmittfull, M

    M. Schmittfull, M. Simonovi´ c, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 05, 059 (2021), arXiv:2012.03334 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Foreman, A

    S. Foreman, A. Obuljen, and M. Simonovi´ c, (2024), arXiv:2405.18559 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Schmittfull, T

    M. Schmittfull, T. Baldauf, and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 91, 043530 (2015), arXiv:1411.6595 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Lazeyras and F

    T. Lazeyras and F. Schmidt, JCAP 1809, 008 (2018), arXiv:1712.07531 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. M. Abidi and T. Baldauf, JCAP 1807, 029 (2018), arXiv:1802.07622 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Schmidt, F

    F. Schmidt, F. Elsner, J. Jasche, N. M. Nguyen, and G. Lavaux, JCAP 01, 042 (2019), arXiv:1808.02002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Elsner, F

    F. Elsner, F. Schmidt, J. Jasche, G. Lavaux, and N.-M. Nguyen, JCAP 01, 029 (2020), arXiv:1906.07143 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cabass and F

    G. Cabass and F. Schmidt, JCAP 04, 042 (2020), arXiv:1909.04022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Modi, S.-F

    C. Modi, S.-F. Chen, and M. White, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 492, 5754 (2020), arXiv:1910.07097 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Schmidt, (2020), arXiv:2009.14176 [astro-ph.CO]

    F. Schmidt, (2020), arXiv:2009.14176 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Schmidt, G

    F. Schmidt, G. Cabass, J. Jasche, and G. Lavaux, JCAP 11, 008 (2020), arXiv:2004.06707 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Lazeyras, A

    T. Lazeyras, A. Barreira, and F. Schmidt, JCAP 10, 063 (2021), arXiv:2106.14713 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Stadler, F

    J. Stadler, F. Schmidt, and M. Reinecke, JCAP 10, 069 (2023), arXiv:2303.09876 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Nguyen, F

    N.-M. Nguyen, F. Schmidt, B. Tucci, M. Reinecke, and A. Kosti´ c, (2024), arXiv:2403.03220 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Chudaykin, K

    A. Chudaykin, K. Dolgikh, and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023507 (2021), arXiv:2009.10106 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, M. Zaldarriaga, M. Si- monovic, and M. Schmittfull, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043508 (2021), arXiv:2009.03311 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Scolnic et al

    D. Scolnic et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083504 (2020), arXiv:1912.08208 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and M. Simonovi´ c, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043525 (2021), arXiv:2009.10724 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, T. Nishimichi, M. Si- monovi´ c, M. Takada, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063512 (2022), arXiv:2110.10161 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bernardeau, S

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

    2002

  67. [75]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and M. Simonovi´ c, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063533 (2020), arXiv:2004.10607 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Taule and M

    P. Taule and M. Garny, JCAP 11, 078 (2023), arXiv:2308.07379 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    J. C. Jackson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 156, 1P (1972), arXiv:0810.3908 [astro-ph]

    1972 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Perko, L

    A. Perko, L. Senatore, E. Jennings, and R. H. Wechsler, (2016), arXiv:1610.09321 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    K. S. Dawson et al. (BOSS), Astron. J. 145, 10 (2013), arXiv:1208.0022 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Zal- darriaga, T. Nischimichi, and M. Takada, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043531 (2022), arXiv:2110.00006 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 05, 032 (2020), arXiv:2002.04035 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and T. Nishimichi, (2024), arXiv:2410.16358 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  75. [83]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103504 (2021), arXiv:2012.09389 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    O. H. E. Philcox, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123529 (2021), arXiv:2107.06287 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A5 (2020), arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Albrecht et al

    A. Albrecht et al. , (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0609591

    2006 arXiv

  81. [89]

    X. T. Tang, D. Brout, T. Karwal, C. Chang, V. Miranda, and M. Vincenzi, Astrophys. J. Lett. 983, L27 (2025), arXiv:2412.04430 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Sailer, G

    N. Sailer, G. S. Farren, S. Ferraro, and M. White, (2025), arXiv:2504.16932 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  83. [91]

    W. L. Xu, J. B. Mu˜ noz, and C. Dvorkin, Phys. Rev. D 105, 095029 (2022), arXiv:2107.09664 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  84. [92]

    K. K. Rogers, R. Hloˇ zek, A. Lagu¨ e, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, G. Cabass, K. Akitsu, and D. J. E. Marsh, JCAP 06, 023 (2023), arXiv:2301.08361 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A. He, M. M. Ivanov, R. An, and V. Gluscevic, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 954, L8 (2023), arXiv:2301.08260 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A. He, R. An, M. M. Ivanov, and V. Gluscevic, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103527 (2024), arXiv:2309.03956 [astro- 17 ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    A. He, M. M. Ivanov, R. An, T. Driskell, and V. Glusce- vic, JCAP 05, 087 (2025), arXiv:2502.02636 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    M. M. Ivanov, E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. Simonovi´ c, M. W. Toomey, S. Alexander, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103502 (2020), arXiv:2006.11235 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    McDonough, J

    E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. M. Ivanov, A. La Posta, and M. W. Toomey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33, 2430003 (2024), arXiv:2310.19899 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    M. W. Toomey, M. M. Ivanov, and E. McDonough, (2024), arXiv:2409.09029 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023507 (2024), arXiv:2309.10133 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. W. Toomey, and N. G. Kara¸ caylı, (2024), arXiv:2405.13208 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    de Belsunce, S.-F

    R. de Belsunce, S.-F. Chen, M. M. Ivanov, C. Ravoux, S. Chabanier, J. Sexton, and Z. Lukic, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063524 (2025), arXiv:2412.06892 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2501.04770 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  95. [103]

    A. He, M. M. Ivanov, S. Bird, R. An, and V. Gluscevic, (2025), arXiv:2503.15592 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  96. [104]

    Hadzhiyska, R

    B. Hadzhiyska, R. de Belsunce, A. Cuceu, J. Guy, M. M. Ivanov, H. Coquinot, and A. Font-Ribera, (2025), arXiv:2503.13442 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.