pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2510.13962 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Simulation budgeting for hybrid effective field theories

Alexa Bartlett , Joseph DeRose , Martin White This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords hybrid effective field theoryN-body simulationsemulator trainingcosmological parametersdark energy modelssimulation budgetingperturbation theorylarge-scale structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fewer than 225 N-body simulations suffice to train hybrid effective field theory emulators to 1-2 percent accuracy over wide cosmological parameter spaces.

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

This paper forecasts the number of N-body simulations required to train emulators for hybrid effective field theory models that describe large-scale structure in the universe. It sets accuracy targets of 1 percent in high-likelihood regions and 2 percent over broader volumes for wavenumbers below 1 h per Mpc and redshifts below 3. Using a surrogate model built from HMcode and perturbation theory, the work finds that under 225 simulations meet these goals even when including models with rapidly evolving dark energy, while 80 simulations work for narrower parameter ranges. These budgets provide concrete planning numbers that reduce the computational demands of building emulators for upcoming cosmological surveys.

Core claim

The paper claims that a hybrid surrogate of HMcode and perturbation theory can be used to forecast emulator performance, showing that fewer than 225 full N-body simulations are needed to reach the stated accuracy targets across an 8-parameter w0waCDM plus neutrino mass space that includes rapidly evolving dark energy, with the number dropping to as low as 80 for more restricted parameter volumes.

What carries the argument

Hybrid surrogate model combining HMcode for small scales and perturbation theory for large scales, used to approximate the error behavior of a full HEFT emulator without running extensive N-body training sets.

If this is right

  • Wide cosmological parameter spaces that include evolving dark energy require simulation budgets below 225 to reach the accuracy goals.
  • Restricted parameter volumes can be covered with as few as 80 simulations under the same accuracy criteria.
  • The public code released with the paper allows direct application of these budgeting methods to other emulator designs.
  • These forecasts supply practical numbers for allocating computational resources in future large-scale structure analyses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the surrogate approach generalizes, similar budgeting techniques could lower simulation costs for emulators of other effective field theory variants.
  • Survey teams could use these numbers to decide how many simulations to run before committing to full emulator training runs.
  • Direct comparison of the surrogate predictions against a small set of actual HEFT emulators would test whether the forecasted counts remain valid in practice.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid of HMcode and perturbation theory accurately represents the error behavior that would appear in an actual HEFT emulator trained directly on N-body simulations.

What would settle it

Build a complete HEFT emulator using the forecasted number of N-body simulations and measure whether the achieved accuracy on test data matches the 1-2 percent targets across the specified scales, redshifts, and parameter ranges.

read the original abstract

In this work, we forecast the number of, and requirements on, N-body simulations needed to train hybrid effective field theory (HEFT) emulators for a range of use cases, using a hybrid of HMcode and perturbation theory as a surrogate model. Our accuracy goals, determined with careful consideration of statistical and systematic uncertainties, are $1\%$ accurate in the high-likelihood range of cosmological parameters, and $2\%$ accurate over a broader parameter space volume for $k<1 h Mpc^{-1}$ and $z<3$. Focusing in part on the 8-parameter $w_0w_a$CDM+$m_\nu$ cosmological model, we find that $<225$ simulations are required to meet our error goals over our wide parameter space, including models with rapidly evolving dark energy, given our simulation and emulator recommendations. For a more restricted parameter space volume, as few as 80 simulations are sufficient. We additionally present simulation forecasts for example use cases, and make the code used in our analyses publicly available. These results offer practical guidance for efficient emulator design and simulation budgeting in future cosmological analyses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts the number of N-body simulations required to train hybrid effective field theory (HEFT) emulators across cosmological parameter spaces, including the 8-parameter w0waCDM + mν model. Using a hybrid of HMcode and perturbation theory as a surrogate for emulator residual errors, the authors set accuracy targets of 1% in high-likelihood regions and 2% over broader volumes for k < 1 h Mpc⁻¹ and z < 3. They conclude that fewer than 225 simulations suffice for the wide parameter space (including rapidly evolving dark energy), with as few as 80 sufficient for restricted volumes, and release the analysis code publicly.

Significance. If the surrogate model faithfully reproduces the error scaling of actual N-body-trained HEFT emulators, the work supplies concrete, practical guidance for simulation budgeting that could reduce computational costs for emulator construction in upcoming surveys. The public code release strengthens reproducibility and allows direct reuse or extension by the community.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The headline claims of <225 (wide space) and 80 (restricted) simulations rest on treating the HMcode+PT hybrid as a proxy for the true residual error surface of a full HEFT emulator. No direct side-by-side comparison of surrogate versus N-body-trained HEFT error curves is presented, particularly for the parameter dependence at the 1% and 2% thresholds or for rapidly varying w0wa and neutrino mass. This modeling assumption is load-bearing for the quoted simulation counts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2.1] §2.1: The definition of the accuracy targets could be expanded with an explicit equation showing how statistical and systematic uncertainties are combined to arrive at the 1% and 2% thresholds.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 caption: Clarify whether the plotted error curves are from the surrogate alone or include any cross-check against limited N-body runs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the major comment below, providing a substantive response and indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The headline claims of <225 (wide space) and 80 (restricted) simulations rest on treating the HMcode+PT hybrid as a proxy for the true residual error surface of a full HEFT emulator. No direct side-by-side comparison of surrogate versus N-body-trained HEFT error curves is presented, particularly for the parameter dependence at the 1% and 2% thresholds or for rapidly varying w0wa and neutrino mass. This modeling assumption is load-bearing for the quoted simulation counts.

    Authors: We agree that the fidelity of the HMcode+PT surrogate is central to the quoted simulation budgets. A direct side-by-side validation against full N-body-trained HEFT emulators across the 8D w0waCDM + mν space would strengthen the work, but performing the necessary suite of high-resolution N-body runs at the required density in parameter space is computationally prohibitive—the very expense our forecasting approach is designed to avoid. The surrogate was chosen because prior HEFT studies have shown that HMcode+PT reproduces the dominant scale- and redshift-dependent residuals of N-body power spectra to within a few percent for k < 1 h Mpc⁻¹ and z < 3. In the revised manuscript we will (i) expand §4 with a dedicated subsection on surrogate assumptions and limitations, citing the relevant validation literature, (ii) add explicit caveats in both the abstract and results section noting that the <225 / 80 figures are forecasts conditioned on this surrogate, and (iii) include a brief discussion of how the parameter dependence (especially for rapidly evolving w0wa and mν) enters the error model. These changes will make the modeling assumptions transparent without altering the core numerical forecasts. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in simulation budgeting forecasts

full rationale

The paper derives simulation count forecasts (<225 or 80) by applying accuracy thresholds to error surfaces generated from an HMcode+perturbation-theory surrogate model. This constitutes an independent forward-modeling choice to approximate HEFT emulator requirements rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation that reduces the central claim to its own inputs by construction. The surrogate is treated as a proxy whose fidelity is an external modeling assumption, not an internal redefinition of the target quantities. No equations or steps in the derivation chain exhibit the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The forecast depends on the surrogate model (HMcode + perturbation theory) being representative of HEFT emulator errors and on the chosen accuracy thresholds (1% high-likelihood, 2% broader) being the relevant targets for cosmological analyses. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • accuracy targets (1% and 2%)
    Chosen based on expected statistical and systematic uncertainties; directly determine the simulation count thresholds.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hybrid HMcode + perturbation theory accurately captures the error scaling of a full N-body trained HEFT emulator
    Invoked to translate surrogate results into simulation budgeting recommendations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5720 in / 1339 out tokens · 25855 ms · 2026-05-18T06:56:07.902877+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue et al.,Wide-field infrarred survey telescope-astrophysics focused telescope assets wfirst-afta 2015 report, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    O. Doré, J. Bock, M. Ashby, P. Capak, A. Cooray, R. de Putter et al.,Cosmology with the spherex all-sky spectral survey, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Laureijs, J

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J.L. Auguères, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole et al.,Euclid definition study report, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Amendola, S

    L. Amendola, S. Appleby, A. Avgoustidis, D. Bacon, T. Baker, M. Baldi et al.,Cosmology and fundamental physics with the euclid satellite,Living Reviews in Relativity21(2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Ivezić, S.M

    Ž. Ivezić, S.M. Kahn, J.A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman et al.,Lsst: From science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products,The Astrophysical Journal873 (2019) 111

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Collaboration, A

    D. Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The desi experiment part i: Science, targeting, and survey design, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Collaboration, A

    D. Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al.,The desi experiment part ii: Instrument design, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Collaboration, B

    D. Collaboration, B. Abareshi, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al.,Overview of the instrumentation for the dark energy spectroscopic instrument,The Astronomical Journal164(2022) 207

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Kokron, J

    N. Kokron, J. DeRose, S.-F. Chen, M. White and R.H. Wechsler,The cosmology dependence – 35 – of galaxy clustering and lensing from a hybrid n-body–perturbation theory model,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society505(2021) 1422–1440

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Modi, S.-F

    C. Modi, S.-F. Chen and M. White,Simulations and symmetries,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society492(2020) 5754–5763

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Hadzhiyska, C

    B. Hadzhiyska, C. García-García, D. Alonso, A. Nicola and A. Slosar,Hefty enhancement of cosmological constraints from the des y1 data using a hybrid effective field theory approach to galaxy bias,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(2021) 020

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Zennaro, R.E

    M. Zennaro, R.E. Angulo, S. Contreras, M. Pellejero-Ibáñez and F. Maion,Priors on lagrangian bias parameters from galaxy formation modelling,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society514(2022) 5443–5456

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Pellejero-Ibañez, R.E

    M. Pellejero-Ibañez, R.E. Angulo, M. Zennaro, J. Stücker, S. Contreras, G. Aricò et al.,The bacco simulation project: bacco hybrid lagrangian bias expansion model in redshift space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society520(2023) 3725–3741

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Nicola, B

    A. Nicola, B. Hadzhiyska, N. Findlay, C. García-García, D. Alonso, A. Slosar et al.,Galaxy bias in the era of lsst: perturbative bias expansions, Feb., 2024. 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/015

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/015 2024

  15. [15]

    CHEVALLIER and D

    M. CHEVALLIER and D. POLARSKI,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, International Journal of Modern Physics D10(2001) 213–223

    work page 2001

  16. [16]

    Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Physical Review Letters90 (2003)

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Physical Review Letters90 (2003)

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztañaga and R. Scoccimarro,Large-scale structure of the universe and cosmological perturbation theory,Physics Reports367(2002) 1–248

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-scale galaxy bias,Physics Reports733(2018) 1–193

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Ivanov,Effective Field Theory for Large Scale Structure,arXiv e-prints(2022) arXiv:2212.08488 [2212.08488]

    M.M. Ivanov,Effective Field Theory for Large Scale Structure,arXiv e-prints(2022) arXiv:2212.08488 [2212.08488]

    work page arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Aviles and A

    A. Aviles and A. Banerjee,A lagrangian perturbation theory in the presence of massive neutrinos,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(2020) 034–034

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Aviles, G

    A. Aviles, G. Valogiannis, M.A. Rodriguez-Meza, J.L. Cervantes-Cota, B. Li and R. Bean, Redshift space power spectrum beyond einstein-de sitter kernels,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(2021) 039

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,The effective field theory of large-scale structure in the presence of massive neutrinos, 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah and M. White,A new analysis of galaxy 2-point functions in the boss survey, including full-shape information and post-reconstruction bao,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(2022) 008

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    The Connection between Galaxies and their Dark Matter Halos

    R.H. Wechsler and J.L. Tinker,The Connection Between Galaxies and Their Dark Matter Halos,ARA&A56(2018) 435 [1804.03097]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Tinker, A.V

    J. Tinker, A.V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, K. Abazajian, M. Warren, G. Yepes et al.,Toward a halo mass function for precision cosmology: The limits of universality,The Astrophysical Journal688(2008) 709–728

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    B. Dai, Y. Feng, U. Seljak and S. Singh,High mass and halo resolution from fast low resolution simulations,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(2020) 002–002

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Shiferaw, N

    M. Shiferaw, N. Kokron and R.H. Wechsler,How do uncertainties in galaxy formation physics impact field-level galaxy bias?, 2024. – 36 –

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    S. Zhou, Z. Chen and Y. Yu,Csst cosmological emulator iii: Hybrid lagrangian bias expansion emulation of galaxy clustering, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, E. Castorina and M. White,Redshift-space distortions in lagrangian perturbation theory,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(2021) 100

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    White,The zel’dovich approximation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 439(2014) 3630–3640

    M. White,The zel’dovich approximation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 439(2014) 3630–3640

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Castorina, C

    E. Castorina, C. Carbone, J. Bel, E. Sefusatti and K. Dolag,Demnuni: the clustering of large-scale structures in the presence of massive neutrinos,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015(2015) 043–043

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Bayer, A

    A.E. Bayer, A. Banerjee and Y. Feng,A fast particle-mesh simulation of non-linear cosmological structure formation with massive neutrinos,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(2021) 016–016

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Weak lensing for precision cosmology

    R. Mandelbaum,Weak Lensing for Precision Cosmology,ARA&A56(2018) 393 [1710.03235]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Prat and D

    J. Prat and D. Bacon,Weak Gravitational Lensing,Encyclopedia of Astrophysics (First Edition)(2025) 508 [2501.07938]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Truttero, J

    O. Truttero, J. Zuntz, A. Pourtsidou and N. Robertson,Baryon-frees8 tension with stage iv cosmic shear surveys,The Open Journal of Astrophysics8(2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Abitbolet al.(Simons Observatory), The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts for the en- hanced Large Aperture Telescope, JCAP08, 034, arXiv:2503.00636 [astro-ph.IM]

    The Simons Observatory Collaboration, M. Abitbol, I. Abril-Cabezas, S. Adachi, P. Ade, A.E. Adler et al.,The Simons Observatory: Science Goals and Forecasts for the Enhanced Large Aperture Telescope,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics(2025) arXiv:2503.00636 [2503.00636]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Zhang, H

    T. Zhang, H. Almoubayyed, R. Mandelbaum, M.M. Rau, N. Šarčević, C.D. Leonard et al., Forecasting the impact of source galaxy photometric redshift uncertainties on the lsst3×2pt analysis, 2025

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    X. Fang, E. Krause, T. Eifler, S. Ferraro, K. Benabed, R.S. Pranjal et al.,Cosmology from weak lensing, galaxy clustering, cmb lensing, and tsz – i. 10×2pt modelling methodology, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527(2023) 9581–9593

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    R. Zhou, S. Ferraro, M. White, J. DeRose, N. Sailer, J. Aguilar et al.,DESI luminous red galaxy samples for cross-correlations,JCAP2023(2023) 097 [2309.06443]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    LEWIS and A

    A. LEWIS and A. CHALLINOR,Weak gravitational lensing of the cmb,Physics Reports429 (2006) 1–65

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Hanson, A

    D. Hanson, A. Challinor and A. Lewis,Weak lensing of the cmb,General Relativity and Gravitation42(2010) 2197–2218

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Heydenreich, A

    S. Heydenreich, A. Leauthaud and J. DeRose,Can dynamic dark energy explain thes8 tension, the ‘lensing is low’ effect, or strong baryon feedback?, 2025

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Troxel and M

    M.A. Troxel and M. Ishak,Self-calibration for three-point intrinsic alignment autocorrelations in weak lensing surveys: Three-point ia self-calibration,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society423(2012) 1663–1673

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    Joachimi, M

    B. Joachimi, M. Cacciato, T.D. Kitching, A. Leonard, R. Mandelbaum, B.M. Schäfer et al., Galaxy alignments: An overview,Space Science Reviews193(2015) 1–65

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Kirk, M.L

    D. Kirk, M.L. Brown, H. Hoekstra, B. Joachimi, T.D. Kitching, R. Mandelbaum et al., Galaxy alignments: Observations and impact on cosmology,Space Science Reviews193(2015) 139–211

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Kiessling, M

    A. Kiessling, M. Cacciato, B. Joachimi, D. Kirk, T.D. Kitching, A. Leonard et al.,Galaxy alignments: Theory, modelling & simulations,Space Science Reviews193(2015) 67–136. – 37 –

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    Lamman, E

    C. Lamman, E. Tsaprazi, J. Shi, N.N. Šarčević, S. Pyne, E. Legnani et al.,The ia guide: A breakdown of intrinsic alignment formalisms,The Open Journal of Astrophysics7(2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Siegel, J

    J. Siegel, J. McCullough, A. Amon, C. Lamman, N. Jeffrey, B. Joachimi et al.,Intrinsic alignment demographics for next-generation lensing: Revealing galaxy property trends with DESI Y1 direct measurements,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2507.11530 [2507.11530]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    KiDS-450: Cosmological Constraints from Weak Lensing Peak Statistics - II: Inference from Shear Peaks using N-body Simulations

    N. Martinet, P. Schneider, H. Hildebrandt, H. Shan, M. Asgari, J.P. Dietrich et al.,KiDS-450: cosmological constraints from weak-lensing peak statistics - II: Inference from shear peaks using N-body simulations,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.474(2018) 712 [1709.07678]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Vlah, N.E

    Z. Vlah, N.E. Chisari and F. Schmidt,An eft description of galaxy intrinsic alignments, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(2020) 025–025

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Chen and N

    S.-F. Chen and N. Kokron,A lagrangian theory for galaxy shape statistics, Jan., 2024. 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/027

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/027 2024

  53. [53]

    S. Chen, J. DeRose, R. Zhou, M. White, S. Ferraro, C. Blake et al.,Analysis of DESI×DES using the Lagrangian effective theory of LSS,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 103518 [2407.04795]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    White,Baryons and weak lensing power spectra,Astroparticle Physics22(2004) 211–217

    M. White,Baryons and weak lensing power spectra,Astroparticle Physics22(2004) 211–217

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    Zhan and L

    H. Zhan and L. Knox,Effect of hot baryons on the weak-lensing shear power spectrum,The Astrophysical Journal616(2004) L75–L78

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    van Daalen, J

    M.P. van Daalen, J. Schaye, C.M. Booth and C. Dalla Vecchia,The effects of galaxy formation on the matter power spectrum: a challenge for precision cosmology: Galaxy formation and the matter power spectrum,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 415(2011) 3649–3665

    work page 2011

  57. [57]

    Chisari, M.L.A

    N.E. Chisari, M.L.A. Richardson, J. Devriendt, Y. Dubois, A. Schneider, A.M.C. LeBrun et al.,The impact of baryons on the matter power spectrum from the horizon-agn cosmological hydrodynamical simulation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society480(2018) 3962–3977

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    van Daalen, I.G

    M.P. van Daalen, I.G. McCarthy and J. Schaye,Exploring the effects of galaxy formation on matter clustering through a library of simulation power spectra,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society491(2019) 2424–2446

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Kovač, A

    M. Kovač, A. Nicola, J. Bucko, A. Schneider, R. Reischke, S.K. Giri et al.,Baryonification ii: Constraining feedback with x-ray and kinematic sunyaev-zel’dovich observations, 2025

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Preston, A

    C. Preston, A. Amon and G. Efstathiou,A non-linear solution to thes8 tension ii: Analysis of des year 3 cosmic shear, Aug., 2023. 10.1093/mnras/stad2573

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2573 2023

  61. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07152

    B. Hadzhiyska, S. Ferraro, B.R. Guachalla, E. Schaan, J. Aguilar, N. Battaglia et al., Evidence for large baryonic feedback at low and intermediate redshifts from kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich observations with ACT and DESI photometric galaxies,Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) 083509 [2407.07152]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Ried Guachalla, E

    B. Ried Guachalla, E. Schaan, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Ferraro, J.N. Aguilar, S. Ahlen et al., Backlighting extended gas halos around luminous red galaxies: kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect from DESI Y1 x ACT,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2503.19870 [2503.19870]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Efstathiou and F

    G. Efstathiou and F. McCarthy,The power spectrum of the thermal sunyaev-zeldovich effect, May, 2025. 10.1093/mnras/staf709

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf709 2025

  64. [64]

    Pandey, J.C

    S. Pandey, J.C. Hill, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon, D. Anbajagane et al.,Constraints on cosmology and baryonic feedback with joint analysis of Dark Energy Survey Year 3 lensing data and ACT DR6 thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect observations,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2506.07432 [2506.07432]. – 38 –

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Siegel, A

    J. Siegel, A. Amon, I.G. McCarthy, L. Bigwood, M. Yamamoto, E. Bulbul et al.,Joint x-ray, kinetic sunyaev-zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a consensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters, 2025

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Broxterman, P

    J.C. Broxterman, P. Simon, L. Porth, K. Kuijken, A.H. Wright, M. Asgari et al.,Matter power spectrum reconstruction with kids-legacy: Improved internalλcdm consistency and preference for strong baryonic feedback, 2025

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    G., et al

    J. Siegel, A. Amon, I.G. McCarthy, L. Bigwood, M. Yamamoto, E. Bulbul et al.,Joint X-ray, kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich, and weak lensing measurements: toward a consensus picture of efficient gas expulsion from groups and clusters,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2509.10455 [2509.10455]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Le Brun, I.G

    A.M.C. Le Brun, I.G. McCarthy, J. Schaye and T.J. Ponman,Towards a realistic population of simulated galaxy groups and clusters,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 441(2014) 1270–1290

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    McCarthy, J

    I.G. McCarthy, J. Schaye, S. Bird and A.M.C. Le Brun,The bahamas project: calibrated hydrodynamical simulations for large-scale structure cosmology,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society465(2016) 2936–2965

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    Delgado, D

    A.M. Delgado, D. Angles-Alcazar, L. Thiele, S. Pandey, K. Lehman, R.S. Somerville et al., Predicting the impact of feedback on matter clustering with machine learning in camels, Dec.,

    work page

  71. [71]

    10.1093/mnras/stad2992

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2992

  72. [72]

    Schaye, R

    J. Schaye, R. Kugel, M. Schaller, J.C. Helly, J. Braspenning, W. Elbers et al.,The flamingo project: cosmological hydrodynamical simulations for large-scale structure and galaxy cluster surveys,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526(2023) 4978–5020

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    Pakmor, V

    R. Pakmor, V. Springel, J.P. Coles, T. Guillet, C. Pfrommer, S. Bose et al.,The MillenniumTNG Project: the hydrodynamical full physics simulation and a first look at its galaxy clusters,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.524(2023) 2539 [2210.10060]

    work page arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Bigwood, M.A

    L. Bigwood, M.A. Bourne, V. Irsic, A. Amon and D. Sijacki,The case for large-scale AGN feedback in galaxy formation simulations: insights from XFABLE,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society542(2025) 3206–3230

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    Introducing the Illustris Project: Simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe

    M. Vogelsberger, S. Genel, V. Springel, P. Torrey, D. Sijacki, D. Xu et al.,Introducing the Illustris Project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.444(2014) 1518 [1405.2921]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [76]

    Salcido, I.G

    J. Salcido, I.G. McCarthy, J. Kwan, A. Upadhye and A.S. Font,Sp(k) – a hydrodynamical simulation-based model for the impact of baryon physics on the non-linear matter power spectrum,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society523(2023) 2247–2262

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    Amon and G

    A. Amon and G. Efstathiou,A non-linear solution to the s8 tension?,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516(2022) 5355–5366

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Schaller and J

    M. Schaller and J. Schaye,An analytic redshift-independent formulation of baryonic effects on the matter power spectrum, Sept., 2025. 10.1093/mnras/staf871

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf871 2025

  79. [79]

    García-García, M

    C. García-García, M. Zennaro, G. Aricò, D. Alonso and R.E. Angulo,Cosmic shear with small scales: Des-y3, kids-1000 and hsc-dr1,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024(2024) 024

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Bigwood, A

    L. Bigwood, A. Amon, A. Schneider, J. Salcido, I.G. McCarthy, C. Preston et al.,Weak lensing combined with the kinetic sunyaev zel’dovich effect: A study of baryonic feedback, Sept., 2024. 10.1093/mnras/stae2100

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2100 2024

Showing first 80 references.