Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 76 references

A neural-network emulator trained on the ratio of nonlinear to linear modified-gravity power spectra reproduces the reference to 1.5% over most scales, making nonlinear MG tests affordable in Stage-IV surveys.

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

2026-08-03 01:49 UTC pith:UD5IPKBY

load-bearing objection A useful, unusually well-validated emulator for the MG reconstruction setup, but the abstract's 1.5% claim is a representative-spectra number and the trained network isn't released; it deserves a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29683 v1 pith:UD5IPKBY submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.CO

Emulating the nonlinear effects of modified gravity on the matter power spectrum for reconstruction

Lanyang Yi , Kazuya Koyama , Qi Xiong , Gong-Bo Zhao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords modified gravitynonlinear matter power spectrumemulatormodel-independent reconstructionscreening parameterweak lensingStage-IV surveysprincipal component analysis
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.

The paper aims to establish that the expensive nonlinear modified-gravity matter power spectrum can be replaced, in model-independent reconstruction pipelines, by a fast neural-network emulator trained on the ratio R_MG(k,z)=P_NL_MG/P_L_MG. Trained on roughly 9e5 spectra from a modified Boltzmann code paired with a halo-model reaction code, the emulator matches the reference nonlinear spectra within 1.5% for LCDM and moderate MG corrections over the full scale range considered, and within 1.5% for k<0.8 Mpc^-1 even in the strongest screened-parameter case studied. Across 2000 independent validation points, mean residuals are near zero, with 2-sigma scatter below 1% for k<0.5 Mpc^-1 and about 2% at smaller scales. When used in MCMC analyses of synthetic DESI-like BAO+RSD and CSST-like weak-lensing data, the emulator recovers the fiducial LCDM cosmology and the GR limits of the reconstructed MG functions within posterior uncertainties. If correct, this brings nonlinear MG information into Stage-IV survey likelihoods and sharpens model-independent tests of gravity.

Core claim

The central claim is that the nonlinear correction to the matter power spectrum in scale-independent modified-gravity reconstructions can be emulated directly as the ratio R_MG(k,z)=P_NL_MG/P_L_MG rather than the full spectrum, and that this ratio is accurate enough for survey-grade inference. Training a fully connected neural network with four hidden layers of 512 units on about 9e5 reference spectra over 10^-5<k<10 Mpc^-1 and 0<=z<=5, with inputs including standard cosmological parameters, the mu(a) and Omega_X(a) reconstruction nodes, redshift, and the screening parameter p1, the authors achieve within-1.5% agreement with the reference on representative spectra for LCDM and p1=0,1, and fo

What carries the argument

The key object is the ratio emulator: a neural network that maps the parameter vector {logA, ns, h, Omega_b h^2, Omega_c h^2, mu_1..mu_11, Omega_X,1..Omega_X,10, z, p1} to the ratio R_MG(k,z)=P_NL_MG/P_L_MG on a 420-mode k-grid. The ratio target isolates the model-dependent nonlinear modification, so the accurate linear prediction from the Boltzmann code carries the large-scale behavior while the network learns only the nonlinear correction, which is the expensive part of the halo-model reaction calculation. The screening parameter p1 controls the strength of the MG nonlinear correction, with p2-p4 set to zero to match the assumed scale-independent reconstruction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reference pipeline—the modified Boltzmann code plus halo-model reaction code with only the screening parameter p1 varied and p2=p3=p4=0—correctly represents the true nonlinear modified-gravity power spectrum for scale-independent theories over the training ranges, including redshifts above the reaction code's calibration limit z=2.5, where the paper treats the prediction as a controlled approximation.

What would settle it

Compare the emulator's predicted P_NL_MG against an N-body simulation of a screened modified-gravity theory at redshifts 2.5<z<5 and scales up to k=1 Mpc^-1, matched to the same mu(a), Omega_X(a), and screening strength. If the emulator deviates from the simulation by more than the claimed 1.5-2% while matching the reference pipeline, then the emulator reproduces the reference code's error rather than the true nonlinear spectrum.

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

If this is right

  • The emulator reduces the cost of a nonlinear MG spectrum from about 80 seconds to about 20 seconds, making repeated likelihood evaluations in high-dimensional MG reconstruction practical.
  • MG models with nearly degenerate linear power spectra can be distinguished through their nonlinear corrections, as demonstrated with ten models whose linear spectra differ from LCDM by less than 0.1%.
  • In a worst-case emulator error scenario, the induced bias in current photometric-survey 3x2pt correlation functions remains below about 0.1 sigma after scale cuts, subdominant to current measurement uncertainties.
  • A DESI+CSST PCA forecast shows that the higher-precision dataset combination improves 30 of 32 reconstructed modes, with an average 46% error reduction for the lensing function Sigma.
  • The emulator is intended for use within its training k-range and with p1 in [-2,2]; extrapolation beyond this range and extreme nonlinear regimes require caution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The ratio-emulation strategy should transfer to other beyond-LCDM models: any model whose linear spectrum is already computed accurately could gain a nonlinear emulator trained on the same ratio target, avoiding the need to emulate a large dynamic range.
  • Because the emulator inherits the reaction code's calibration limit at z=2.5 while training and validation extend to z=5, a decisive test is to compare the emulated spectra against N-body simulations of screened MG theories at z>2.5; if the reference is biased there, the 1.5% claim is accuracy to a wrong target.
  • The current restriction to p1 with p2=p3=p4=0 excludes scale-dependent MG signatures; extending the input vector to include p2-p4 would let the same architecture handle scale-dependent screening, a natural next step.
  • The PCA forecast suggests the weakest Omega_X modes are limited by redshift sampling coverage rather than emulator accuracy, so adding intermediate-redshift data points would likely tighten background reconstruction.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a neural-network emulator for the modified-gravity nonlinear correction R_MG(k,z)=P_MG^NL/P_MG^L, using CosmoPower trained on approximately 9e5 MGCAMB+ReACT spectra. The input space covers standard cosmological parameters, the reconstructed mu(a) and Omega_X(a) nodes, redshift z in [0,5], and the ReACT nonlinear parameter p1 in [-2,2]. Validation proceeds through representative spectra (including LambdaCDM and MG models whose linear spectra are nearly degenerate with LambdaCDM), an independent 2000-point validation set, and synthetic-data MCMC analyses with DESI-like BAO+RSD and CSST-like 3x2pt likelihoods. The paper claims agreement with MGCAMB+ReACT within 1.5% for LambdaCDM and moderate MG corrections over the full scale range, within 1.5% for k<0.8 Mpc^-1 in the extreme p1=2 case, and 2-sigma residuals below 1% for k<0.5 Mpc^-1 and about 2% on smaller scales over the validation set. Three applications are presented: distinguishing MG models with degenerate linear spectra, assessing emulator error in DES-Y3-like 3x2pt predictions, and forecasting DESI+CSST constraints via PCA.

Significance. If the accuracy claims hold, the emulator is a useful, fast surrogate for MGCAMB+ReACT in the model-independent MG reconstruction pipeline, where repeated nonlinear spectrum evaluations are a bottleneck. The paper's strengths are its unusually thorough validation: a large training set, an independent 2000-point validation set, pipeline-level MCMC tests with synthetic Stage-IV-like data, and explicit discussion of the ratio target's advantages. The emulator is explicitly a surrogate for MGCAMB+ReACT, so validation against that code is appropriate rather than circular. However, the headline accuracy claim is not fully supported by the validation statistics as presented, and the use of z>2.5 inherits an acknowledged ReACT calibration limitation. The central idea is sound, but the quantitative claims and the treatment of the uncalibrated redshift regime need tightening before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §5.1 and §5.2, Eq. (5.1), Fig. 7] The abstract states that emulated spectra agree with the reference to within 1.5% for LambdaCDM and moderate MG corrections 'over the full scale range considered.' The evidence in §5.1 is a handful of hand-picked representative spectra, not a distributional statement. The 2000-point validation set in §5.2/Fig. 7 shows mean residual near zero but a 2-sigma scatter that is below 1% only for k<0.5 Mpc^-1 and 'about 2%' at smaller scales; no maximum or high percentile is reported, and the residuals are not stratified by p1 or redshift. For p1=2, §5.1 reports larger deviations for k>0.8 Mpc^-1. Thus the 'within 1.5%' claim as written is not established for a general point in the training volume. Please report the 95th/99th percentile or maximum of |Delta P| over the validation set as a function of k and p1, and revise the abstract/discussion to distinguish the representative-spectra result fr
  2. [§4.3.2, §7; Table 1 and training range z∈[0,5]] The paper trains and validates the emulator up to z=5, while ReACT is stated to be calibrated only for z≤2.5. In the CSST-like likelihoods the z>2.5 contribution is included, with the paper replacing the emulator prediction by P_pseudo at z>2.5 and calling this a 'controlled approximation.' This is acknowledged as a limitation, but it is load-bearing for the claim that the emulator is validated for Stage-IV-like surveys: the training set itself contains ReACT outputs at z>2.5 that are outside the calibrated regime, so the emulator may be accurately reproducing an unvalidated reference in that range. Please quantify the contribution of z>2.5 to the angular power spectra used in the MCMC tests, or restrict training/validation to z≤2.5 and treat higher redshifts with an explicitly tested approximation. At minimum, the abstract should not imply validated accuracy over the full z∈[0,5] range.
  3. [§5.3 and Table 4] The MCMC validation is presented as showing unbiased recovery of the fiducial parameters, but the reported posterior means and best fits show deviations in several mu and Sigma nodes (e.g., mu5 posterior mean 1.279 in DESI-I+CSST-I) that are said to be within 1-sigma. Since the table does not list the posterior uncertainties, the reader cannot verify this statement. The paper attributes the shifts to projection effects and degeneracies with bias parameters; to make this argument convincing, please show the 1-sigma error bars alongside the means in Table 4 or in the corresponding figure. This is not a central flaw, but it prevents the reader from independently assessing the 'no emulator-induced bias' conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The text uses 'MGCAMB' to mean MGCAMB+ReACT in many places (e.g., §4.1, §5.1). Please introduce a clear shorthand, e.g., 'MGCAMB+ReACT', and use it consistently to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [§3.3 / Table 1] The training set combines chain-based and random samples, but the relative fraction and the exact p1 sampling distribution (uniform over [-2,2]?) are not stated. Since validation statistics are not stratified by p1, please specify the p1 distribution in training and validation sets.
  3. [§4.3.1] The convergence criterion R−1≲0.1 is unusually loose; typical MCMC convergence criteria use R−1<0.01. Please report the achieved R−1 values or use a stricter threshold.
  4. [Figure 7] Please add numerical values for the maximum and 95th percentile residual, not only the 2-sigma band. This would directly address the headline accuracy claim.
  5. [§7 / Data availability] The trained emulator and the training/validation datasets are not publicly released; 'supporting research data are available on reasonable request' is not sufficient for reproducibility. Please provide a public repository or clear code-release plan.
  6. [Figure 2] The covariance matrices are shown as color maps without a color scale or axis labels for the data-vector indices. Please add a color bar and define the ordering of the blocks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: surrogate emulator validated against held-out MGCAMB+ReACT outputs; the mild Ref. [20] training-data self-reference is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The core deliverable is a neural-network emulator for R_MG(k,z)=P_MG^NL/P_MG^L, trained on roughly 9x10^5 MGCAMB+ReACT spectra. All accuracy claims are validated against held-out predictions of the same generator: representative spectra, a separately generated 2000-point validation set, and synthetic-data MCMC tests. That is the appropriate benchmark for a surrogate/emulator: matching the training code on unseen inputs measures interpolation quality, not a physical prediction, and is not circular. The MCMC 'recovery' tests use synthetic LambdaCDM data generated from CAMB/HMCode, so they are pipeline consistency checks, not fits of emulator parameters to observations. The only author-overlap self-citation that plays any role is the use of reconstruction chains from Ref. [20] as one quarter of the training parameter samples (§3.3). This is a parameter-space sampling choice, not a validation claim or an external prediction; the validation sets are separate and the accuracy statistics do not depend on Ref. [20] as 'truth'. The restriction to p1 with p2=p3=p4=0 is an explicitly stated modeling approximation inherited from ReACT (§2.2), and the paper flags its extrapolation limits (§7); it is not an ansatz disguised as a derived result. The reader's concern that the abstract's 'within 1.5%' claim is not fully supported by the 2sigma scatter of about 2% at small scales is a question of how strongly the validation statistics justify the headline accuracy; it is a correctness/statistical-reporting issue, not a circularity issue under the definitional tests. No load-bearing circular step, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation chain is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no physics free parameters fitted to observations. The central free parameters are the neural-network weights, which are fitted to the training set by construction; they are the emulator itself rather than an ad hoc addition. The load-bearing assumptions are the fidelity of the reference code (ReACT) and the scale-independence of the reconstruction functions.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption ReACT's halo-model reaction with only p1 varied (p2=p3=p4=0) faithfully represents nonlinear MG effects for scale-independent scalar-tensor theories.
    This underpins the training data and the physical interpretation of the emulator; see §2.2 Eq. (2.5) and the ReACT parameterization discussion.
  • domain assumption The reconstructed functions µ and Σ are scale-independent, so a single screening parameter p1 captures the nonlinear correction.
    Stated in §2.1 with motivation from Refs [42–44]; if scale dependence is relevant on the scales probed, the emulator's input space is incomplete.
  • domain assumption ReACT is valid for z≤2.5, and its use up to z=5 in training and z≈3 in CSST-like data is a controlled approximation.
    Acknowledged in §4.3.2 and §7; the training range extends to z=5 while the calibration is stated to be z≤2.5.
  • domain assumption The training parameter ranges in Table 1 (based on the 3σ posterior of Ref [20] chains) cover the physically relevant region; extrapolation outside is uncontrolled.
    The emulator is only validated inside these ranges; the authors state in §7 that use outside the training range is not controlled.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 24872 in / 15570 out tokens · 152668 ms · 2026-08-03T01:49:28.164419+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Including nonlinear information from modified gravity (MG) brings more constraining power to the model-independent reconstruction of MG functions. However, the calculation of the nonlinear matter power spectrum with MGCAMB+ReACT is expensive in repeated likelihood evaluations, which limits the exploration of the high-dimensional parameter space. In this work, we construct a neural-network emulator for the nonlinear correction $R_{\mathrm{MG}}(k,z)=P_{\mathrm{MG}}^{\mathrm{NL}}(k,z)/P_{\mathrm{MG}}^{\mathrm{L}}(k,z)$, which is trained with \texttt{CosmoPower} on approximately $9\times10^5$ samples and validated with representative spectra, an independent validation set, and MCMC tests with synthetic data. For $\Lambda$CDM and moderate MG nonlinear corrections, the emulated power spectra agree with the reference predictions to within $1.5\%$ over the full scale range considered. For the extreme nonlinear case, the same accuracy is retained for $k<0.8\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. Over the independent validation set, the mean residual is close to zero, with the $2\sigma$ scatter below $1\%$ for $k<0.5\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ and about $2\%$ on smaller scales. The synthetic data MCMC analyses recover the input $\Lambda$CDM cosmology and the GR limits of the reconstructed MG functions within the posterior uncertainties, showing the accuracy and reliability of the emulator for Stage-IV-like surveys. We also demonstrate three applications: using $R_{\mathrm{MG}}$ to distinguish models with nearly degenerate linear power spectra, using the emulator for theory predictions for current photometric-survey $3\times2$pt likelihoods, and forecasting DESI+CSST constraints with principal component analysis.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 70 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Riess, A.V

    A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,Astron. J.116(1998) 1009 [astro-ph/9805201]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,Astrophys. J.517(1999) 565 [astro-ph/9812133]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Adame, J

    A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez et al.,DESI 2024 V: Full-Shape galaxy clustering from galaxies and quasars,JCAP09(2025) 008 [2411.12021]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Abdul Karim, J

    M. Abdul Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen, C. Allende Prieto et al.,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515 [2503.14738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Popovic, P

    B. Popovic, P. Shah, W.D. Kenworthy, R. Kessler, T.M. Davis, A. Goobar et al.,The Dark Energy Survey supernova program: a reanalysis of cosmology results and evidence for evolving dark energy with an updated Type Ia supernova calibration,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.548 (2026) stag632 [2511.07517]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    T.J. Hoyt, D. Rubin, G. Aldering, S. Perlmutter, A. Cuceu and R. Gupta,Union3.1: Self-consistent Measurements of Host Galaxy Properties for 2000 Type Ia Supernovae,arXiv e-prints(2026) arXiv:2601.19424 [2601.19424]

    arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Clifton, P.G

    T. Clifton, P.G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis,Modified Gravity and Cosmology,Phys. Rept.513(2012) 1 [1106.2476]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Koyama,Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity,Rept

    K. Koyama,Cosmological Tests of Modified Gravity,Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) 046902 [1504.04623]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Ishak,Testing General Relativity in Cosmology,Living Rev

    M. Ishak,Testing General Relativity in Cosmology,Living Rev. Rel.22(2019) 1 [1806.10122]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger,Cosmological Perturbation Theory in the Synchronous and Conformal Newtonian Gauges,Astrophys. J.455(1995) 7 [astro-ph/9506072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  11. [11]

    Caldwell, A

    R. Caldwell, A. Cooray and A. Melchiorri,Constraints on a New Post-General Relativity Cosmological Parameter,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 023507 [astro-ph/0703375]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Kunz and D. Sapone,Measuring the dark side (with weak lensing),JCAP04 (2008) 013 [0704.2421]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Hu and I

    W. Hu and I. Sawicki,A Parameterized Post-Friedmann Framework for Modified Gravity, Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 104043 [0708.1190]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    Jain and P

    B. Jain and P. Zhang,Observational Tests of Modified Gravity,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 063503 [0709.2375]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Bertschinger and P

    E. Bertschinger and P. Zukin,Distinguishing Modified Gravity from Dark Energy,Phys. Rev. D 78(2008) 024015 [0801.2431]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    G.-B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and J. Zylberberg,Searching for modified growth patterns with tomographic surveys,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 083513 [0809.3791]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  17. [17]

    Pogosian, A

    L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, K. Koyama and G.-B. Zhao,How to optimally parametrize deviations from General Relativity in the evolution of cosmological perturbations?,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 104023 [1002.2382]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    G.-B. Zhao, T. Giannantonio, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, D.J. Bacon, K. Koyama et al.,Probing modifications of General Relativity using current cosmological observations,Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 103510 [1003.0001]. – 31 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Silvestri, L

    A. Silvestri, L. Pogosian and R.V. Buniy,Practical approach to cosmological perturbations in modified gravity,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 104015 [1302.1193]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    Pogosian, M

    L. Pogosian, M. Raveri, K. Koyama, M. Martinelli, A. Silvestri, G.-B. Zhao et al.,Imprints of cosmological tensions in reconstructed gravity,Nature Astron.6(2022) 1484 [2107.12992]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Adame, J

    A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, C. Allende Prieto et al.,DESI 2024 VII: cosmological constraints from the full-shape modeling of clustering measurements, JCAP07(2025) 028 [2411.12022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Ishak, J

    M. Ishak, J. Pan, R. Calderon, K. Lodha, G. Valogiannis, A. Aviles et al.,Modified gravity constraints from the full shape modeling of clustering measurements from DESI 2024,JCAP09 (2025) 053 [2411.12026]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Abbott, M

    T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, O. Alves, A. Amon, F. Andrade-Oliveira et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Constraints on extensions toΛCDM with weak lensing and galaxy clustering,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 083504 [2207.05766]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Andrade, A.J.S

    U. Andrade, A.J.S. Capistrano, E. Di Valentino and R.C. Nunes,Exploring modified gravity: constraints on theµandΣparametrization with WMAP, ACT, and SPT,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529(2024) 831 [2309.15781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Ferreira and C

    P.G. Ferreira and C. Skordis,The linear growth rate of structure in Parametrized Post Friedmannian Universes,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 104020 [1003.4231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Abbott, F.B

    T.M.C. Abbott, F.B. Abdalla, S. Avila, M. Banerji, E. Baxter, K. Bechtol et al.,Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Constraints on extended cosmological models from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 123505 [1810.02499]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Zucca, L

    A. Zucca, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and G.B. Zhao,MGCAMB with massive neutrinos and dynamical dark energy,JCAP05(2019) 001 [1901.05956]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Koyama, A

    K. Koyama, A. Taruya and T. Hiramatsu,Non-linear Evolution of Matter Power Spectrum in Modified Theory of Gravity,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 123512 [0902.0618]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    Z. Wang, D. Saadeh, K. Koyama, L. Pogosian, B. Bose, L. Yi et al.,Extending MGCAMB tests of gravity to nonlinear scales,JCAP11(2024) 003 [2406.09204]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Cataneo, L

    M. Cataneo, L. Lombriser, C. Heymans, A.J. Mead, A. Barreira, S. Bose et al.,On the road to percent accuracy: non-linear reaction of the matter power spectrum to dark energy and modified gravity,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488(2019) 2121 [1812.05594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    B. Bose, M. Cataneo, T. Tröster, Q. Xia, C. Heymans and L. Lombriser,On the road to per cent accuracy IV: ReACT - computing the non-linear power spectrum beyondΛCDM,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498(2020) 4650 [2005.12184]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    B. Bose, M. Tsedrik, J. Kennedy, L. Lombriser, A. Pourtsidou and A. Taylor,Fast and accurate predictions of the non-linear matter power spectrum for general models of Dark Energy and Modified Gravity,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.519(2023) 4780 [2210.01094]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Winther, S

    H. Winther, S. Casas, M. Baldi, K. Koyama, B. Li, L. Lombriser et al.,Emulators for the nonlinear matter power spectrum beyondΛCDM,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 123540 [1903.08798]. [35]LSST Dark Energy Sciencecollaboration,Matter Power Spectrum Emulator for f(R) Modified Gravity Cosmologies,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 123525 [2010.00596]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [36]

    Arnold, B

    C. Arnold, B. Li, B. Giblin, J. Harnois-Déraps and Y.-C. Cai,forge: the f(R)-gravity cosmic – 32 – emulator project – I. Introduction and matter power spectrum emulator,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515(2022) 4161 [2109.04984]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [37]

    Sáez-Casares, Y

    I. Sáez-Casares, Y. Rasera and B. Li,The e-MANTIS emulator: fast predictions of the non-linear matter power spectrum in f(R)CDM cosmology,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527 (2024) 7242 [2303.08899]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [38]

    Mauland, H.A

    R. Mauland, H.A. Winther and C.-Z. Ruan,Sesame: A power spectrum emulator pipeline for beyond-ΛCDM models,Astron. Astrophys.685(2024) A156 [2309.13295]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    Fiorini, K

    B. Fiorini, K. Koyama and T. Baker,Fast production of cosmological emulators in modified gravity: the matter power spectrum,JCAP12(2023) 045 [2310.05786]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    Srinivasan, S

    S. Srinivasan, S. Prabhu, K. Lehman, A.K. V. and J. Weller,Cosmological gravity on all scales. Part V. MCMC forecasts combining large scale structure and CMB lensing for binned phenomenological modified gravity,JCAP07(2026) 058 [2603.11895]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [41]

    Tsedrik, B

    M. Tsedrik, B. Bose, P. Carrilho, A. Pourtsidou, S. Pamuk, S. Casas et al.,Stage-IV cosmic shear with Modified Gravity and model-independent screening,JCAP10(2024) 099 [2404.11508]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [42]

    J. Wang, L. Hui and J. Khoury,No-Go Theorems for Generalized Chameleon Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 241301 [1208.4612]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [43]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury and M. Trodden,Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model,Phys. Rept.568(2015) 1 [1407.0059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [44]

    Pogosian and A

    L. Pogosian and A. Silvestri,What can cosmology tell us about gravity? Constraining Horndeski gravity withΣandµ,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 104014 [1606.05339]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [45]

    Wang, S.H

    Z. Wang, S.H. Mirpoorian, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and G.-B. Zhao,New MGCAMB tests of gravity with CosmoMC and Cobaya,JCAP08(2023) 038 [2305.05667]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [46]

    Hojjati, L

    A. Hojjati, L. Pogosian and G.-B. Zhao,Testing gravity with CAMB and CosmoMC,JCAP08 (2011) 005 [1106.4543]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [47]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient Computation of Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies in Closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Models,Astrophys. J.538 (2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [48]

    Lewis,CAMB v2: cosmological power spectra for high-precision surveys,2607.14854

    A. Lewis,CAMB v2: cosmological power spectra for high-precision surveys,2607.14854

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [49]

    Spurio Mancini, D

    A. Spurio Mancini, D. Piras, J. Alsing, B. Joachimi and M.P. Hobson,COSMOPOWER: emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511(2022) 1771 [2106.03846]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [50]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle,Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: A Monte Carlo approach,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 103511 [astro-ph/0205436]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  50. [51]

    Lewis,Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,Phys

    A. Lewis,Efficient sampling of fast and slow cosmological parameters,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 103529 [1304.4473]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  51. [52]

    Powell et al.,The bobyqa algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives, Cambridge NA Report NA2009/06, University of Cambridge, Cambridge26(2009) 1

    M.J. Powell et al.,The bobyqa algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives, Cambridge NA Report NA2009/06, University of Cambridge, Cambridge26(2009) 1

    2009

  52. [53]

    Cartis, J

    C. Cartis, J. Fiala, B. Marteau and L. Roberts,Improving the Flexibility and Robustness of Model-Based Derivative-Free Optimization Solvers,1804.00154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [54]

    Cartis, L

    C. Cartis, L. Roberts and O. Sheridan-Methven,Escaping local minima with local derivative-free methods: a numerical investigation,Optimization71(2021) 2343 [1812.11343]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [55]

    Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, “Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology.” Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019, Oct., 2019. – 33 –

    1910

  55. [56]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis,Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models, JCAP05(2021) 057 [2005.05290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [57]

    Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,JCAP08(2025) 025 [1910.13970]

    A. Lewis,GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,JCAP08(2025) 025 [1910.13970]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    Adame, J

    A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander, M. Alvarez et al.,DESI 2024 IV: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman alpha forest,JCAP01(2025) 124 [2404.03001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [59]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, G. Aldering et al.,Validation of the Scientific Program for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument,Astron. J.167(2024) 62 [2306.06307]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [60]

    White, Y.-S

    M. White, Y.-S. Song and W.J. Percival,Forecasting cosmological constraints from redshift surveys,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.397(2009) 1348 [0810.1518]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [61]

    Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Mon

    N. Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.227 (1987) 1

    1987

  61. [62]

    A.J. Mead, C. Heymans, L. Lombriser, J.A. Peacock, O.I. Steele and H.A. Winther,Accurate halo-model matter power spectra with dark energy, massive neutrinos and modified gravitational forces,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459(2016) 1468 [1602.02154]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [63]

    Xiong, Y

    Q. Xiong, Y. Gong, X. Zhou, H. Lin, F. Deng, Z. Li et al.,Exploring Cosmological Constraints of the Weak Gravitational Lensing and Galaxy Clustering Joint Analysis in the CSST Photometric Survey,Astrophys. J.985(2025) 131 [2410.19388]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [64]

    Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field

    D.N. Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field. II.,Astrophys. J.119(1954) 655

    1954

  64. [65]

    Porredon, M

    A. Porredon, M. Crocce, J. Elvin-Poole, R. Cawthon, G. Giannini, J. De Vicente et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing using the MAGLIM lens sample,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 103530 [2105.13546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [66]

    Cawthon, J

    R. Cawthon, J. Elvin-Poole, A. Porredon, M. Crocce, G. Giannini, M. Gatti et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: calibration of lens sample redshift distributions using clustering redshifts with BOSS/eBOSS,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.513(2022) 5517 [2012.12826]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [67]

    Takada and W

    M. Takada and W. Hu,Power spectrum super-sample covariance,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 123504 [1302.6994]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [68]

    Takada and B

    M. Takada and B. Jain,Cosmological parameters from lensing power spectrum and bispectrum tomography,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.348(2004) 897 [astro-ph/0310125]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  68. [69]

    Chisari, D

    N.E. Chisari, D. Alonso, E. Krause, C.D. Leonard, P. Bull, J. Neveu et al.,Core Cosmology Library: Precision Cosmological Predictions for LSST,Astrophys. J. Suppl.242(2019) 2 [1812.05995]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [70]

    Navarro, C.S

    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White,The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos, Astrophys. J.462(1996) 563 [astro-ph/9508025]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  70. [71]

    Duffy, J

    A.R. Duffy, J. Schaye, S.T. Kay and C. Dalla Vecchia,Dark matter halo concentrations in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe year 5 cosmology,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.390 (2008) L64 [0804.2486]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  71. [72]

    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,Astrophys. J.688(2008) 709 [0803.2706]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  72. [73]

    Tinker, B.E

    J.L. Tinker, B.E. Robertson, A.V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, M.S. Warren, G. Yepes et al.,The Large-scale Bias of Dark Matter Halos: Numerical Calibration and Model Tests,Astrophys. J. 724(2010) 878 [1001.3162]. – 34 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  73. [74]

    Abbott, M

    T.M.C. Abbott, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves, A. Amon et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 023520 [2105.13549]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [75]

    G.-B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri and J. Zylberberg,Cosmological Tests of General Relativity with Future Tomographic Surveys,Phys. Rev. Lett.103(2009) 241301 [0905.1326]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  75. [76]

    Hojjati, G.-B

    A. Hojjati, G.-B. Zhao, L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, R. Crittenden and K. Koyama,Cosmological tests of General Relativity: a principal component analysis,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 043508 [1111.3960]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  76. [77]

    A. Hall, C. Bonvin and A. Challinor,Testing general relativity with 21-cm intensity mapping, Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 064026 [1212.0728]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013