Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 10 cited by

Simulation-based priors calibrated from halo occupation models allow small-scale DESI clustering data to sharpen cosmological constraints, reducing the dark-energy signal to ≤2.2σ and setting the strongest w0waCDM neutrino-mass limit to dat

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:54 UTC pith:IOSRFP6A

load-bearing objection A careful, well-tested SBP re-analysis of DESI DR1 whose headline gains are real only if the HOD priors cover the true galaxy–halo connection; the QSO prior is the load-bearing assumption. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.18554 v2 pith:IOSRFP6A submitted 2026-02-20 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-phhep-th

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

Anton Chudaykin , Mikhail M. Ivanov , Oliver H. E. Philcox This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords simulation-based priorshalo occupation distributioneffective field theory of large-scale structuregalaxy power spectrumdark energyneutrino massesDESI DR1cosmological parameters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to show that the cosmological information hidden in small-scale galaxy clustering can be recovered by replacing broad, agnostic priors on the nuisance parameters of the effective-field-theory (EFT) power-spectrum model with 'simulation-based priors' (SBPs) calibrated from halo occupation distribution (HOD) simulations. Applying this to DESI DR1 full-shape data, the authors report percent-level ΛCDM constraints (Ωm, H0, σ8), a 70% improvement in the dark-energy figure of merit, a reduction of the preference for dynamical dark energy to ≤2.2σ, and the strongest neutrino-mass bound in w0waCDM to date (Mν<0.090 eV at 95% CL). If correct, this establishes a practical way to exploit small-scale information in galaxy surveys without abandoning the EFT framework. The authors caution that the results depend on HOD modeling assumptions, especially for quasars, which drive a downward shift in σ8.

Core claim

The paper argues that DESI DR1 full-shape analyses waste small-scale information by marginalizing over broad, agnostic priors on effective-field-theory (EFT) nuisance parameters. It replaces them with simulation-based priors (SBPs): normalizing flows fitted to EFT parameters from field-level halo occupation distribution (HOD) simulations for each tracer. With SBPs, it reports Ωm=0.2987±0.0066, H0=68.80±0.35, σ8=0.766±0.015 (improvements of 1%, 40%, 50%), a 70% dark-energy figure-of-merit gain, a drop in dynamical dark-energy preference to ≤2.2σ (1.4σ with supernovae), and Mν<0.090 eV at 95% CL in w0waCDM—the strongest neutrino-mass limit to date. The paper cautions results are sensitive to H

What carries the argument

The central object is the simulation-based prior (SBP): a prior distribution over the eleven non-cosmological parameters of the one-loop EFT power-spectrum model ({b1,b2,bG2,bΓ3,c0,c2,c4,b4,Pshot,a0,a2}) constructed by fitting normalizing flows to the EFT parameters measured from field-level HOD simulations. Each DESI tracer (BGS, LRG1-3, ELG2, QSO) is assigned an HOD model (a decorated Zheng-type model for LRG/BGS, an HOD-ELG/HMQ prescription for ELG, and a simpler seven-parameter model without assembly bias for QSO) run in fixed ΛCDM AbacusSummit boxes at the tracer's effective redshift (z≈0.5, 1.1, 1.5). The flows capture non-Gaussian correlations among EFT parameters, so the priors break

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the HOD models and flat parameter ranges used to generate the SBPs—fixed ΛCDM AbacusSummit cosmology, no assembly bias for quasars, no cosmology-dependence in the priors—span the true galaxy–halo connection of the DESI tracers; if they do not, every quoted constraint (σ8 shift, dark-energy significance, neutrino-mass bound) is biased.

What would settle it

Re-run the SBP analysis with a qualitatively different galaxy-formation prior—for example, an HOD for QSO that includes assembly bias, or priors calibrated from hydrodynamical simulations—and check whether the σ8=0.766±0.015 result and the Mν<0.090 eV (w0waCDM) bound persist. If σ8 returns to ≈0.81 and the neutrino bound weakens, the prior choice, not the data, is driving the headline results. A second falsifier: compare against a direct HOD emulator analysis on the same scale cuts; if the contours differ beyond the quoted error bars, the normalizing-flow compression of EFT parameters is lossy

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Small-scale clustering information can be folded into EFT analyses through HOD-calibrated priors, roughly halving the error on σ8 and S8 from DESI full-shape data—an effective fourfold increase in survey volume for the clustering amplitude.
  • The preference for dynamical dark energy drops from about 2.9σ with conservative priors to ≤2.2σ without supernovae and 1.4σ with supernovae, so the DESI dark-energy hint is substantially weakened once small-scale information is used.
  • The 95% upper limit Mν<0.090 eV in w0waCDM is the strongest neutrino-mass bound to date and formally disfavors the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy at about 2σ, regardless of background dynamics.
  • Including SBPs makes the galaxy bispectrum redundant for parameter constraints in this dataset, since the priors already tighten EFT parameters more than the DESI DR1 bispectrum does.
  • The method generalizes to future surveys (DESI-II, Euclid, Rubin, Roman): as statistical errors shrink, simulation-calibrated priors become a scalable route to managing theory systematics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • (Editorial inference) If the ~2σ downward shift in σ8 is not reproduced by DESI DR2 full-shape data or by an independent HOD emulator, the most likely culprit is the restrictive QSO HOD (no assembly bias), making the σ8 shift a testable prior-misspecification diagnostic.
  • (Editorial inference) The same flow-based prior machinery could be applied to the one-loop bispectrum, two-dimensional clustering statistics, or lensing cross-correlations; the paper notes these as future extensions, and if successful they would likely tighten the neutrino-mass and dark-energy constraints further.
  • (Editorial inference) The discrepancy between the Bayesian marginalization result (68% CL consistency with ΛCDM) and the frequentist Δχ² (2.2σ) in the no-SN dark-energy analysis suggests that a portion of the residual dark-energy preference is a prior-volume/projection effect; future analyses could report both metrics to make this transparent.
  • (Editorial inference) If the Mν<0.090 eV bound survives contact with higher-redshift or photometric samples, it would strengthen the case for the normal neutrino mass hierarchy as a robust result; running the SBP pipeline without the BBN prior on ωb would test the sensitivity of the bound to that assumption.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a reanalysis of DESI DR1 full-shape galaxy clustering using simulation-based priors (SBPs) calibrated from field-level HOD simulations. The priors are fitted with normalizing flows to the distribution of EFT parameters derived from decorated HOD models for BGS, LRG, ELG, and QSO tracers, and are used in place of the conservative EFT priors adopted in earlier papers of the series. The authors report significantly tighter ΛCDM constraints (σ8=0.766±0.015, H0=68.80±0.35 when combined with DESI DR2 BAO and a BBN prior), a reduced preference for dynamical dark energy (≤2.2σ without supernovae, ≤1.4σ with), and a neutrino mass bound Mν<0.090 eV at 95% CL in w0waCDM, which they describe as the strongest to date. The paper includes appendices validating projection effects (App. B), the omission of the bispectrum (App. C), and a Gaussian approximation to the SBPs (App. D). The authors are candid that the results are sensitive to HOD assumptions, particularly for QSO, and that the fixed ΛCDM cosmology used to generate the priors has not been validated for extended cosmologies.

Significance. If the HOD priors faithfully cover the galaxy–halo connection of the DESI tracers, the paper demonstrates a substantial increase in the cosmological information extracted from full-shape clustering: a factor-of-two reduction in σ8 uncertainty, a 70% improvement in dark-energy figure of merit, and a neutrino-mass bound that rivals or exceeds previous constraints. The comparison of SBP and CBP results also provides an important methodological lesson about how much information is lost by overly conservative EFT marginalization. The strengths of the manuscript include its use of public DESI data, explicit mock-based projection tests, sensitivity checks with the bispectrum, and a Gaussian-prior variant. However, the central claims rest on the coverage properties of the HOD prior, especially for QSO, and the paper's own text identifies the QSO HOD choice as the driver of the 2σ downward shift in σ8. The validation mocks in App. B are generated from the same underlying SBP model and therefore cannot detect prior misspecification. These concerns are load-bearing for the headline results, so the paper is not yet ready for acceptance without additional robustness tests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.5 (QSO model, Eqs. 10–11) and App. A] The QSO prior is built from a 7-parameter HOD without assembly bias or baryonic feedback, using an analytic peak-height mapping that the paper itself states 'remains to be rigorously tested for QSO.' Appendix A attributes the largest EFT information gain to 'the more restrictive HOD models' for QSO. Since Table I shows the SBP ΛCDM σ8=0.766±0.015 is in 2.3σ tension with Paper 4 and the abstract states the σ8 shift is 'driven by the quasar HOD assumptions,' the headline result is directly contingent on this prior. Please provide a robustness test that broadens the QSO prior (e.g., include assembly bias, widen the ranges in Eq. 11) or removes QSO from the analysis, and quote the resulting change in σ8. Without such a test, the reported 2σ downward shift cannot be distinguished from systematic prior misspecification.
  2. [Sec. 2.5 (fixed cosmology) and Sec. 4] The EFT priors are generated at a fixed AbacusSummit ΛCDM cosmology and fixed redshifts, yet they are applied to w0waCDM and massive-neutrino fits. The paper states in Sec. 2.5 that 'high-fidelity tests of the priors in non-standard (and non-ΛCDM) cosmologies have yet to be performed,' and in Sec. 4 that the assumption has not been validated. This matters directly for the neutrino-mass claim: the w0waCDM limit Mν<0.090 eV (Table IV) formally disfavors the inverted hierarchy, and the dark-energy significance in Table III is claimed to improve with SBPs. Please validate the prior transfer by running a small set of HOD mocks at representative (w0, wa) and Mν values and comparing the EFT parameter distributions, or by quantifying the expected effect analytically. A statement that 'we do not expect large changes' is not sufficient for a 95% upper limit that is claimed as the strongest to date
  3. [App. B (mock recovery tests)] The mock recovery tests generate synthetic data from the best-fit SBP model and analyze them with the same theory pipeline. This is a valid test of internal consistency and of prior-volume projection effects, but it cannot detect a prior that excludes the true galaxy–halo connection of the real DESI tracers. The 'good recovery' of input parameters in Table VI is therefore not evidence that the HOD prior has adequate coverage. Please add cross-validation with mocks generated from a different model family—for example, an HOD with assembly bias for QSO, or the MillenniumTNG/Astrid simulations already cited in Sec. 4—and assess whether the SBP posterior recovers the input cosmological parameters. This is the essential test for the paper's central claim, since all headline results inherit the prior coverage assumption.
  4. [Sec. 3.2 and App. B (projection effects in w0waCDM)] The w0waCDM projection shifts in Table VI are approximately 0.5σ for both w0 and wa, directed toward the ΛCDM point. The text in Sec. 3.2 acknowledges that the Bayesian SBP w0wa analyses are 'partially influenced by marginalization projection effects' and that these effects pull the posteriors toward the cosmological constant. Yet the abstract and conclusions quote the reduced preference as 'consistent with ΛCDM within 2.2σ (1.4σ)' without separating the projection component from the data-driven component. Please state explicitly which of the quoted significances are corrected for prior-volume effects, or quote projection-corrected values. As written, the numbers mix a frequentist Δχ² statistic with a Bayesian posterior known to be biased by ~0.5σ toward ΛCDM.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.5] The text refers to the 'AbacusSmall suite'; the standard name is AbacusSummit small-box suite. Please correct the terminology.
  2. [Fig. 5] The axis label uses 'Mtot' while the text and tables use 'Mν'. Please align the notation.
  3. [Table VI] The caption reports deviations 'in units of σ' without specifying which σ (posterior standard deviation, prior width, or something else). Please define the normalization used for the shifts.
  4. [Sec. 3.3 and Abstract] The claim that Mν<0.090 eV is 'the strongest constraint obtained to date' should be qualified by the analysis assumptions (SBP, external datasets, and the w0waCDM background) and by a comparison with the official DESI DR2 neutrino constraints, so that readers can assess the comparison properly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: SBPs are external to DESI DR1 and the posterior constraints are genuine outputs.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: HOD simulations (external to DESI DR1) -> EFT parameter distributions -> normalizing-flow priors -> DESI power-spectrum likelihood -> cosmological posteriors. The priors are not fitted to the DESI data used in the likelihood; they come from AbacusSummit simulations at fixed cosmology and fixed redshifts with flat HOD ranges. The headline constraints are posterior outputs, not re-statements of the priors: the SBP sigma8 posterior (0.766+/-0.015) differs strongly from the AbacusSummit/Planck fiducial value, and the no-CMB H0 posterior is data-driven. The projection tests in Appendix B generate mock data from the best-fit SBP model and recover it; this is a self-consistency check for prior-volume effects, not an external validation, and the paper does not use it to exclude HOD misspecification. The paper's own limitation statements (Sec. 2.5: peak-height mapping 'remains to be rigorously tested for QSO'; Sec. 4: results 'less robust to systematics' and it is 'unclear whether this represents a breakdown of our EFT prior assumptions') identify model risk, not circularity. Heavy reliance on same-group citations ([36]-[38],[41]) for the SBP machinery and HOD samples is a provenance issue; those priors are external to the DESI measurements and no equation or fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. I can exhibit no step where an output equals an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing external inputs are the hand-chosen HOD priors and fixed simulation cosmology, plus the standard EFT-model assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • HOD prior ranges for BGS/LRG = log10 Mcut ∈ [12,14], log10 M1 ∈ [13,15], etc.
    Flat ranges chosen by hand (§2.5); the SBP shape and hence cosmological shifts depend on these bounds.
  • HOD prior ranges for ELG = logMcut ∈ [11.6,12.6], etc.
    Hand-chosen ranges from [102]; used for ELG SBP.
  • QSO HOD ranges (no assembly bias) = log10 Mcut ∈ [11.2,14], log10 M1 ∈ [14,16], etc.
    Restrictive model without assembly bias; drives the σ8 downwards shift.
  • Fixed AbacusSummit cosmology for prior generation = Planck-like ΛCDM at z=0.5/1.1/1.5
    Priors do not vary with cosmology; used in w0waCDM and Mν runs (§2.5).
  • EFT counterterm k_NL normalization = 0.45 h/Mpc
    Sets stochastic counterterm scale (§2.3).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption One-loop EFT of LSS plus tree-level bispectrum is a valid model of the galaxy power spectrum for k∈[0.02,0.20] h/Mpc
    Assumed throughout; citations to validation in Paper 1.
  • domain assumption The covariance matrices are Gaussian and accurately capture survey geometry and systematics
    PolyBin3D FFT-based covariances assumed exact (Sec 2.1).
  • domain assumption BAO and full-shape covariances are uncorrelated
    Stated in Sec 2.1, referencing Paper 1 appendices.
  • ad hoc to paper HOD parameter space spans the true galaxy–halo connection for each tracer
    Central premise of the SBP method; authors flag sensitivity in Sec 4.
  • ad hoc to paper EFT parameters from HOD mocks at fixed ΛCDM cosmology apply to varying dark-energy and neutrino-mass cosmologies
    Acknowledged limitation in Sec 2.5; no tests in non-ΛCDM backgrounds.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30032 in / 12897 out tokens · 105490 ms · 2026-08-02T21:54:15.996724+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We analyze the public DESI full-shape clustering data using simulation-based priors (SBPs). Our priors are obtained by fitting normalizing flows to the distribution of EFT parameters measured from field-level simulations, themselves generated using tailored halo occupation distribution (HOD) models for each tracer. Incorporating SBPs in a power spectrum analysis significantly enhances $\Lambda$CDM cosmological parameter constraints; in combination with BAO information from DESI DR2 and a BBN prior on the baryon density, we find the matter density parameter $\Omega_m=0.2987\pm0.0066$, the Hubble constant $H_0=68.80\pm0.35\,\rm{km}\,\rm{s}^{-1}\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and the mass fluctuation amplitude $\sigma_8 = 0.766\pm0.015$ (or the lensing parameter $S_8=0.764\pm0.018$), which are $1\%$, $40\%$ and $50\%$ stronger than the baseline results, though with a notable downwards shift in $\sigma_8$, driven by the quasar HOD assumptions. The SBPs also have a significant impact in extended models, with the dark energy figure-of-merit improving by $70\%$ ($20\%$) in a $w_0w_a$CDM analysis when combining with the CMB (and supernovae). In the SBP analysis, we do not find statistically significant evidence for dynamical dark energy: the equation of state parameters are consistent with a cosmological constant within $2.2\sigma$ ($1.4\sigma$) in analyses without (with) supernovae. The neutrino mass constraints are also enhanced, with the $95\%$ limits $M_\nu<0.073\,\rm{eV}$ and $M_\nu<0.090\,\rm{eV}$ in $\Lambda$CDM and $w_0w_a$CDM respectively. The latter is the strongest constraint obtained to date and reinforces the preference for the normal neutrino mass hierarchy, regardless of the background dynamics. While our results are sensitive to HOD modeling assumptions, they clearly demonstrate that the inclusion of small-scale information can significantly sharpen cosmological parameter constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18554 by Anton Chudaykin, Mikhail M. Ivanov, Oliver H. E. Philcox.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. Galaxy Power Spectrum at Two-Loop Order: Implications for Weak Lensing Surveys and New Physics

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Two-loop EFT galaxy power spectrum achieves per-mille agreement with simulations to k=0.85 h/Mpc and yields three times narrower unbiased σ8 errors than linear theory.

  2. Probing nonlinear structure formation beyond $\Lambda$CDM with the LSS bootstrap: a joint power spectrum and bispectrum analysis

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    First MCMC constraints on LSS bootstrap parameters yield ~7% precision on linear growth modifications and ~57% on quadratic kernel modifications from BOSS data, improving to 1% and 25% with larger simulations.

  3. Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure and Newtonian Motion Gauges

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Newtonian motion gauges extend the validity of Newtonian EFTofLSS to scale-dependent growth and GR effects by transforming linear equations to Newtonian form, computing nonlinear clustering there, and transforming res...

  4. Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure and Newtonian Motion Gauges

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A Newtonian Motion Gauge found via Einstein-Boltzmann solver maps linear dynamics with scale-dependent growth and GR corrections to Newtonian equations, enabling consistent nonlinear EFT calculations that are transfor...

  5. Multi-tracers, multi-surveys: a joint Fisher analysis of DESI+PFS

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Multi-tracer analysis of the PFS-DESI overlap calibrates EFT priors for DESI, improving σ(fσ8) by 8% and σ(Mν) by 54% via better b1σ8 constraints.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    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.

  7. Lyman-Alpha Forest and its Cross-Correlation with High-Redshift Galaxies in Effective Field Theory at the Field Level

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An EFT-based field-level forward model for the Lyman-alpha forest matches simulations at the percent level on quasi-linear scales and generates mocks for DESI and DESI-II analyses.

  8. Multi-tracers, multi-surveys: a joint Fisher analysis of DESI+PFS

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A joint multi-tracer Fisher analysis of DESI and PFS cross-spectra calibrates bias parameters from data, improving forecasted constraints on fσ8 by 33%, neutrino mass by 80%, and Ωm by 49% compared to single-tracer baselines.

  9. Euclid preparation: Testing multi-field inflation with galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Validates redshift-space power spectrum and bispectrum analysis on Abacus-PNG mocks to recover unbiased f_NL constraints for Euclid spectroscopic sample.

  10. Intertwined Constraints in Extended Cosmologies: Dark Energy, Curvature, Neutrinos, and Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Dynamical dark energy remains preferred across extended models while curvature, neutrino mass and inflation parameters show strong model dependence, with no resolution of the H0 tension.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 110 linked inside Pith · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Luminous Red Galaxies (LRG) and Bright Galaxy Survey (BGS).The halo occupation distribu- tion models for LRG and BGS are based on an extension of the classic seven-parameter Zheng et al. model [93, 94], which posits: ⟨Nc⟩(M) = 1 2 1 + Erf logM−logM cut√ 2σ , ⟨Ns⟩(M) =⟨N c⟩(M) M−κM cut M1 α , (3) where⟨N c⟩,⟨N s⟩are the average occupations of halos by cent...

  2. [2]

    DA T A AND ANAL YSIS 2.1. Datasets DESI DR1 full-shape statistics:Our key dataset is the DESI DR1 power spectrum measured from the public data release [48], which is supplemented in some analy- ses by the large-scale bispectrum. This is described in detail in Paper 1; we summarize the main aspects below. The two- and three-point statistics are measured fr...

  3. [3]

    Emission line galaxies (ELG).To model the higher-redshift emission line galaxies, we use the HOD- ELG model and priors specified in [102]. This model, which is also known as the High Mass Quenched (HMQ) prescription, has been developed in [51, 54, 103, 104], and takes a different form to the LRG and BGS model due to the inherent differences in the galaxy ...

  4. [4]

    decorated

    Quasars (QSO).To model the quasar sample, we use the same seven-parameter HOD as for LRGs: ⟨Nc⟩(M) = 1 2 1 + Erf logM−logM cut√ 2σ , ⟨Ns⟩(M) = M−κM cut M1 α , (10) with the priors motivated by those of [53]: log10 Mcut ∈[11.2,14],log 10 M1 ∈[14,16], log10 σ∈[−2,0.5], α∈[0.3,2.0], κ∈[0.3,1.5], αc ∈[0,2], α s ∈[0,1], (11) For this sample, we do not suppleme...

  5. [5]

    kitchen sink

    RESUL TS 3.1.ΛCDM constraints Fig. 1 presents the main cosmological results for the ΛCDM model using the DESI clustering data combined 5 Whilst this assumption remains to be rigorously tested for QSO, it was found to be quite accurate for LRGs [41]. In addition, it is unlikely to be important here since the quasar sample contains only limited statistical ...

  6. [6]

    kitchen sink

    CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have presented a re-analysis of the public DESI DR1 full-shape galaxy clustering data us- ing simulation-based priors on all EFT parameters en- tering the galaxy power spectrum. Our analysis shows 13 Model/DatasetM ν [eV] Ω m H0 σ8 S8 w0 wa ΛCDM+Mν BAO +P ℓ (SBP)<0.262 0.2992 +0.0063 −0.0070 68.74+0.39 −0.39 0.765+0.016 −0.016...

  7. [7]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, (2014), arXiv:1409.1225 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldar- riaga, JCAP1207, 051 (2012), arXiv:1004.2488 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, M. P. Hertzberg, and L. Senatore, JHEP09, 082 (2012), arXiv:1206.2926 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, D. Green, and M. Zaldar- riaga, JCAP1408, 056 (2014), arXiv:1402.5916 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Mirbabayi, F

    M. Mirbabayi, F. Schmidt, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 1507, 030 (2015), arXiv:1412.5169 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Senatore, JCAP1511, 007 (2015), arXiv:1406.7843 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Senatore, JCAP1511, 007 (2015), arXiv:1406.7843 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    D. Blas, M. Garny, M. M. Ivanov, and S. Sibiryakov, JCAP1607, 052 (2016), arXiv:1512.05807 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP1502, 013 (2015), arXiv:1404.5954 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Baldauf, M

    T. Baldauf, M. Mirbabayi, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev.D92, 043514 (2015), arXiv:1504.04366 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Z. Vlah, M. White, and A. Aviles, JCAP09, 014 (2015), arXiv:1506.05264 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Z. Vlah, U. Seljak, M. Y. Chu, and Y. Feng, JCAP 1603, 057 (2016), arXiv:1509.02120 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Z. Vlah, E. Castorina, and M. White, JCAP12, 007 (2016), arXiv:1609.02908 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    Vlah and M

    Z. Vlah and M. White, JCAP1903, 007 (2019), arXiv:1812.02775 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    D’Amico, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    D. Blas, M. Garny, M. M. Ivanov, and S. Sibiryakov, JCAP1607, 028 (2016), arXiv:1605.02149 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    M. M. Ivanov and S. Sibiryakov, JCAP1807, 053 (2018), arXiv:1804.05080 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Vasudevan, M

    A. Vasudevan, M. M. Ivanov, S. Sibiryakov, and J. Lesgourgues, JCAP09, 037 (2019), arXiv:1906.08697 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, and M. White, JCAP07, 062 (2020), arXiv:2005.00523 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, E. Castorina, and M. White, JCAP 03, 100 (2021), arXiv:2012.04636 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP05, 042 (2020), arXiv:1909.05277 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, 22 (2025), arXiv:2507.13433 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP05, 032 (2020), arXiv:2002.04035 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D105, 043517 (2022), arXiv:2112.04515 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, and M. White, JCAP02, 008 (2022), arXiv:2110.05530 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    S.-F. Chen, M. White, J. DeRose, and N. Kokron, JCAP07, 041 (2022), arXiv:2204.10392 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP07, 028 (2025), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Mauset al., (2024), arXiv:2404.07312 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Mauset al., (2024), arXiv:2404.07312 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2511.20757 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2025), arXiv:2512.04266 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    M. M. Ivanov, J. M. Sullivan, S.-F. Chen, A. Chu- daykin, M. Maus, and O. H. E. Philcox, (2026), arXiv:2601.16165 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Desjacques, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and M. Simonovi´ c, Phys. Rev. D102, 063533 (2020), arXiv:2004.10607 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Zhang, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    presented an alternative modeling technique for the EFT parameter distribution based on Gaussian mixture models, instead of the normalizing flow architecture used in the main text. For completeness, in this Appendix we present results based on the Gaussian mixture model with a single component,i.e.we use a Gaussian approx- imation to EFT parameter distrib...

  44. [44]

    M. M. Ivanov, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, S. Mishra-Sharma, A. Obuljen, and M. W. Toomey, Phys. Rev. D110, 063538 (2024), arXiv:2402.13310 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    M. M. Ivanov, A. Obuljen, C. Cuesta-Lazaro, and M. W. Toomey, (2024), arXiv:2409.10609 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Chen and M

    S.-F. Chen and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D112, 083562 (2025), arXiv:2507.00118 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Bonici, G. D’Amico, S. Paradiso, and W. J. Percival, JCAP04, 041 (2025), arXiv:2409.12937 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    J. M. Sullivan, U. Seljak, and S. Singh, JCAP11, 026 (2021), arXiv:2104.10676 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    N. Hand, U. Seljak, F. Beutler, and Z. Vlah, JCAP 1710, 009 (2017), arXiv:1706.02362 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Zhanget al.(DESI), JCAP11, 049 (2025), arXiv:2504.10407 [astro-ph.CO]

    H. Zhanget al.(DESI), JCAP11, 049 (2025), arXiv:2504.10407 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), (2025), arXiv:2503.14745 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    S. Yuan, L. H. Garrison, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose, and D. J. Eisenstein, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 3301 (2022), arXiv:2110.11412 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    S. Yuan, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose, and D. J. Eisen- stein, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 5793 (2022), arXiv:2202.12911 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Yuanet al., Mon

    S. Yuanet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530, 947 (2024), arXiv:2306.06314 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Rocheret al., JCAP10, 016 (2023), arXiv:2306.06319 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Rocheret al., JCAP10, 016 (2023), arXiv:2306.06319 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Mauset al., JCAP11, 077 (2025), arXiv:2505.20656 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Mauset al., JCAP11, 077 (2025), arXiv:2505.20656 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, JHEP 12, 216 (2024), arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.566, A54 (2014), arXiv:1311.1657 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  65. [65]

    Roy Choudhury and S

    S. Roy Choudhury and S. Hannestad, JCAP07, 037 (2020), arXiv:1907.12598 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Craig, D

    N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers, and S. Rajendran, JHEP 09, 097 (2024), arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Loverde and Z

    M. Loverde and Z. J. Weiner, JCAP12, 048 (2024), arXiv:2410.00090 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Green and J

    D. Green and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D111, 083507 (2025), arXiv:2407.07878 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Elbers, C

    W. Elbers, C. S. Frenk, A. Jenkins, B. Li, and S. Pas- coli, Phys. Rev. D111, 063534 (2025), arXiv:2407.10965 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    P. W. Graham, D. Green, and J. Meyers, (2025), arXiv:2508.20999 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Nishimichi, G

    T. Nishimichi, G. D’Amico, M. M. Ivanov, L. Sen- atore, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Takada, M. Zaldarriaga, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D102, 123541 (2020), arXiv:2003.08277 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Chudaykin, K

    A. Chudaykin, K. Dolgikh, and M. M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D103, 023507 (2021), arXiv:2009.10106 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, T. Nishimichi, M. Si- monovi´ c, M. Takada, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D105, 063512 (2022), arXiv:2110.10161 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Zal- darriaga, T. Nischimichi, and M. Takada, Phys. Rev. D105, 043531 (2022), arXiv:2110.00006 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [75]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and M. Simonovi´ c, Phys. Rev. D103, 043525 (2021), arXiv:2009.10724 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. M. Ivanov, (2022), arXiv:2210.17044 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    M. M. Ivanov, (2021), arXiv:2106.12580 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 23 083514 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    M. Maus, A. Baleato Lizancos, M. White, A. de Mattia, and S. Chen, (2026), arXiv:2602.12343 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.