Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

CLASS_SZ II: Notes and Examples of Fast and Accurate Calculations of Halo Model, Large Scale Structure and Cosmic Microwave Background Observables

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

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

Pith's one-line read class_sz aims to compute most CMB and large-scale-structure observables, including halo-model spectra, in under half a second.

desk verdict Useful, honest code-release paper whose 'fast and accurate' headline is under-validated inside the paper itself; send to review, ask for residuals and benchmark details. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07346 v3 pith:2RQXXLBB submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Boris Bolliet , Aleksandra Kusiak , Fiona McCarthy , Alina Sabyr , Kristen Surrao , Jens Chluba , Carmen Embil Villagra , Simone Ferraro
show 11 more authors
Boryana Hadzhiyska Dongwon Han J. Colin Hill Juan Francisco Macías-Pérez Abhishek Maniyar Yogesh Mehta Shivam Pandey Emmanuel Schaan Blake Sherwin Alessio Spurio Mancini Íñigo Zubeldia
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM
keywords class_szhalomodelSunyaev-ZeldovicheffectcosmicinfraredbackgroundCMBlensinggalaxyclusteringpowerspectrumemulatorsfastparameterinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

These are work-in-progress notes for the public class_sz code, and their central claim is that a single pipeline can calculate most of the observables driving current and next-generation CMB and large-scale-structure cosmology: galaxy clustering and shear, CMB lensing, the thermal and kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effects, the cosmic infrared background, their cross-correlations, and three-point statistics, using either a halo model or a linear bias model. The claim that matters for practice is speed: with pre-trained neural emulators of the CMB and matter power spectra plus efficient integration routines, most outputs are stated to take less than 500 milliseconds, and the CMB $C_\ell$ or matter $P(k)$ alone take about a millisecond. If that holds, full parameter-inference chains over these observables become routine rather than prohibitive. The paper is a capability and interface showcase, not a single new theoretical result.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing piece is the fast mode of class_sz, in which pre-trained neural emulators of the CMB $C_\ell$ and matter $P(k)$ replace the slow Boltzmann integration for Lambda-CDM, massive-neutrino, wCDM, and $N_\mathrm{eff}$ extensions. Around that core the code assembles halo-model machinery: radially symmetric tracer profiles (NFW dark matter, gas density, pressure, temperature, HOD galaxy counts, CIB emissivity), Hankel transforms evaluated with fast logarithmic transforms (FFTLog), one- and two-halo (and three-halo, for bispectra) terms, and consistency counterterms that remove the sensitivity of predictions to the unconstrained low-mass cutoff of the mass function. Redshift and mass integrals are performed with nested Patterson quadrature, and the embarassingly parallel loops over multipoles and wavenumbers are OpenMP-parallelized.

What would settle it

Take the fast mode and the full Boltzmann solver of class_sz to the same high-accuracy settings over a parameter grid spanning massive neutrinos, wCDM, and $N_\mathrm{eff}$, and check whether the differences in CMB $C_\ell$ and matter $P(k)$ stay below the error budget of a Stage IV survey; a second check would compare the halo-model tSZ and CIB spectra against N-body-based sky simulations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that class_sz, a public code with C, Python, and differentiable wrappers built on an Einstein-Boltzmann solver, has grown into a general platform for LSS/CMB observables: galaxy clustering and shear, CMB lensing, Compton-$y$ and the thermal and kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effects, cosmic infrared background emission, their cross-correlations, and bispectra, computed in either the halo model or a linear-bias approximation. The central speed claim is that a fast mode, replacing the Boltzmann integration with pre-trained neural emulators, brings most outputs under 500 milliseconds, with CMB $C_\ell$ and matter $P(k)$ at roughly a millisecond. The paper's checks show the fast-mode spectra tracking the full calculation and halo-model outputs matching published tSZ, CIB, and lensing benchmarks, so the intended conclusion is that the code is suitable for fast and ultra-fast parameter inference.

Load-bearing premise

The fast-mode accuracy rests on neural emulators whose Stage-IV-level accuracy was claimed in an earlier paper and is not re-derived or independently validated here; if those emulators are inaccurate for the parameter regions or observables advertised, the speed no longer comes with the claimed accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single public pipeline now covers the two- and three-point observables that surveys must combine, so joint analyses no longer need separate codes for galaxies, lensing, SZ, and CIB.
  • With most evaluations under 500 ms, Markov-chain parameter inference can be run directly on halo-model predictions, not just on linear-bias fitting formulas.
  • Because the fast mode inherits the full Boltzmann solver's consistency, the same pipeline applies to extended cosmologies such as massive neutrinos, dynamical dark energy, curvature, and decaying dark matter.
  • The availability of a differentiable interface opens the way to gradient-based sampling and differentiable forward models built on the same observables.
  • The published benchmarks against tSZ, CIB, and galaxy-lensing results give survey teams a ready-made cross-check for their own pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the emulator accuracy holds, the sub-second evaluation time makes amortized or simulation-based inference over baryonic and halo-occupation parameters a practical next step, though the paper only gestures at this through its differentiable pipeline.
  • The halo-model consistency counterterms remove low-mass-cutoff sensitivity, but the paper's own figures show the one-halo to two-halo transition of the matter power spectrum still disagrees with N-body-calibrated fits; that transition, rather than raw speed, is likely to be the controlling systematic for precision lensing and SZ analyses.
  • The quoted 500 ms is accuracy- and hardware-dependent, so a fair comparison across machines would need a standardized benchmark; the more durable contribution is the ability to swap emulator-based spectra into a general halo-model framework.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents class_sz, an extension of the CLASS Boltzmann code for computing halo-model, large-scale-structure, and CMB observables in C, Python (classy_sz), and JAX. It describes the numerical methods (Limber approximation, FFTLog, Patterson integration, halo-model consistency conditions) and the equations for galaxy clustering, weak lensing, CMB lensing, tSZ/kSZ, CIB, bispectra, and cluster counts. The central claim is that by using cosmopower emulators for CMB and matter power spectra, most class_sz outputs can be computed in under 500 ms, enabling fast parameter inference. The paper is explicitly framed as work-in-progress notes rather than a complete code paper, and it contains unresolved citation placeholders and unquantified validation statements.

Significance. If the speed and accuracy claims are substantiated, class_sz would be a valuable public tool for computing a broad set of two- and three-point statistics for Stage IV surveys. The paper's strengths include a public code release, reproducible notebooks, wrappers for cobaya and cosmosis, a differentiable JAX path, and benchmarks against several independent implementations (McCarthy & Madhavacheril 2021; Maniyar et al. 2021; Stein et al. 2020/Websky; DES; Planck cluster counts). The implementation of halo-model consistency conditions following Schmidt (2016) is a nontrivial technical strength. However, the central 'fast and accurate' claim rests on delegated emulator accuracy, timing claims are not backed by a benchmark table, and several equations contain errors or internal inconsistencies that must be addressed before the paper can be considered reliable.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §1; §3; Figs. 2–3] The central claim that the fast mode is 'high-accuracy' and 'accurate enough for Stage IV analyses' is not validated in this manuscript. Figures 2 and 3 compare fast-mode and exact CLASS curves for what appears to be a single fiducial cosmology, with no residual panels, no maximum-error quotes, and no tests for the massive-neutrino, wCDM, or N_eff extensions advertised in §2. Because the emulated P(k) and C_ell feed all halo-model and Limber integrals, a small P(k) error at the k values dominating a given observable can be amplified by mass and redshift integrals and would directly bias parameter inference at Stage IV sensitivity. The paper should include residual plots and a table of maximum C_ell and P(k) errors for each emulator and parameter range, plus at least one test of how emulator error propagates into a derived observable such as C_tSZ_ell or C_CIB_ell.
  2. [Abstract; §2] The timing claims are internally inconsistent and lack a benchmark. The abstract states that CMB C_ell or matter P(k) take O(1 ms), while §2 states that the background part of CLASS takes O(50 ms) and that computing this plus all CMB power spectra with the emulators takes O(80 ms). It is unclear whether the O(1 ms) figure refers to the emulator call alone after the background is cached; as written, the two statements are contradictory. No benchmark table with hardware, thread count, ℓ_max/k_max, integration settings, and requested outputs is provided, so the headline claim that most class_sz output is below 500 ms is not verifiable. Add a benchmark table and state precisely what is included in each timing.
  3. [§4.5, Eq. (15)] The scale-dependent bias formula appears to have the cosmological prefactor inverted. The manuscript writes Δb(k,m) = 3 f_NL (b(m)−1) δ_c / [Ωm H0^2 k^2 T(k) D(z)], whereas the standard Dalal et al. (2008) form has Ωm H0^2 in the numerator, Δb = 3 f_NL (b−1) δ_c Ωm H0^2 / [k^2 T(k) D(z)]. As written, the expression has the wrong dimensions and would give a grossly wrong f_NL signal on the scales shown in Figure 4. Please correct the equation and check the implementation against an independent formula.
  4. [§5.5, Eq. (45)] The mass-conversion equation is not self-consistent. Equation (45) defines r_Δ′ = [3 m_Δ/(4π Δ′ ρ_crit(z))]^{1/3}, i.e., using the original mass m_Δ rather than the unknown m_Δ′; with that definition m_Δ′/m_Δ is directly fixed by f(c_Δ)/f(c_Δ r_Δ′/r_Δ), and no root-finding in m_Δ′ is needed, contrary to the text. The correct expression should use r_Δ′ = [3 m_Δ′/(4π Δ′ ρ_crit)]^{1/3}, making Eq. (45) an actual equation for m_Δ′. Please clarify what the code implements and validate the mass conversion against an independent routine (e.g., Colossus or ccl) over the mass and redshift range shown in Figure 7.
  5. [§6.3.1; §6.4; §6.5; §10] The manuscript is explicitly work-in-progress and contains unresolved placeholders and unquantified validation claims. There are literal missing citations '(see,e.g.,?, and references therein)' in §6.4 and '(Scoccimarro et al. 2001;?;?)' in §6.5. Section 10 states that the code will not be actively maintained and points to future JAX packages, and benchmark statements such as 'excellent agreement' in §6.3.1 and Figure 16 are not accompanied by residual statistics. In addition, §6.3.1 acknowledges that the halo-model lensing prediction 'is not the most accurate approximation,' and §6.2.1 shows the known 1-to-2-halo transition mismatch. Given these caveats, the broad 'fast and accurate' claim should be qualified, or the promised validations (accuracy residuals, timing table, quantitative benchmark numbers) should be supplied for each advertised observable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors that should be corrected in a careful proofread, including 'kintetic Snyaev' in §1, 'avaialble' in §1, 'porwer' in §6.2.1, 'respectrively' in §6.5, 'comving' and 'aproximations' in §2, and 'T able' in §5.
  2. [§6.4; §6.5] Two literal citation placeholders appear in the text: '(see,e.g.,?, and references therein)' after Eq. (112) and '(Scoccimarro et al. 2001;?;?)' before Eq. (115). These must be replaced with actual references before submission.
  3. [§6.3.1] The statement that 'the tSZ power spectrum calculations from class_sz served as a benchmark for the ccl implementation' should be flagged as a non-independent check; comparing against a code that was itself benchmarked on class_sz does not constitute external validation.
  4. [§6.3.1; Figs. 14, 16] The claims of 'excellent agreement' with Maniyar et al. (2021) and McCarthy & Madhavacheril (2021) should be supported by explicit residual curves or a table of fractional differences, since log-scale plots can visually hide 10–20% deviations.
  5. [Fig. 2] The caption of Figure 2 does not clearly distinguish the fast-mode and exact CLASS curves; the text mentions thin solid lines but the figure lacks a legend, and no residual panel is shown. Adding a legend and residuals would improve the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: observables are assembled from standard published formulas and externally benchmarked models; the emulator-accuracy citation is a delegation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, every observable is assembled from standard, externally published ingredients: halo mass functions and biases (Tinker, Bocquet, Jenkins), concentration-mass relations (Duffy, Bhattacharya, etc.), pressure profiles (Battaglia, Arnaud, Planck), sub-halo mass functions (Tinker & Wetzel, Jiang & van den Bosch), and perturbation-theory bispectra (Scoccimarro & Couchman, Gil-Marin). No parameter is fitted in this paper and renamed as a prediction; the halo-model consistency counter-terms in Section 5.3 are imposed constraints, not derived predictions. The only self-referential element is the fast mode: Section 1 states that the cosmopower emulators 'are accurate enough to be used for Stage IV analyses' citing Bolliet et al. (2023), a paper with overlapping authorship. This is a delegation of validation rather than a circular reduction: the emulator accuracy is externally falsifiable against CLASS, and Figures 2 and 3 provide in-paper fiducial comparisons. The paper does not quantify emulator residuals or validate the extended cosmologies advertised, and the abstract's O(1 ms) CMB timing is inconsistent with Section 2's O(80 ms) figure; these are documentation and verification gaps, not circularity. The central capability claim is therefore self-contained against independent benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is a software capability, so it imports most of its physics from the prior literature. The listed parameters are calibrated elsewhere (simulations or observations) and are used as fiducial inputs; no new constants are fitted in this paper. The axioms are the standard modeling choices built into the code.

free parameters (10)
  • Tinker et al. (2010) HMF and bias parameters = A=0.368, alpha=0.589, beta=0.864, gamma=-0.243, phi=-0.729 at z=0 (Table 2), plus bias parameters in Table 3
    Adopted fiducial halo mass function and bias in Sections 5.1-5.2; every halo-model power spectrum depends on these values.
  • Battaglia et al. (2012) pressure profile parameters = P0=18.1, x_c=0.497, beta_y=4.35 with mass and redshift slopes (Table 6)
    Fiducial tSZ pressure profile in Section 6.2.3; determines all Compton-y spectra.
  • Battaglia (2016) gas density profile parameters = AGN model: C=4e3, alpha=0.88, beta=3.83 with slopes (Table 5); x_c=0.5 and gamma=-0.2 fixed
    Fiducial ICM gas density profile in Section 6.2.2; sets electron density and baryon power spectra.
  • Bhattacharya et al. (2013) concentration-mass normalization = c_vir = 7.7 D^0.9 nu^-0.29 (Eq. 43)
    Fiducial concentration in Section 6.2.1; NFW profiles and mass conversions depend on it.
  • Shang et al. (2012) CIB model parameters = L0, alpha_CIB, beta_CIB, gamma_CIB, T0, M_eff, sigma^2_LM, delta_CIB, M_min, z_p (Eqs. 94-100)
    Section 6.2.8; CIB intensity and power spectra are computed from this ten-parameter set.
  • Maniyar et al. (2021) CIB SFR parameters = SFRc, eta_max, m_eff, sigma_lnm, tau_cib, z_cib, f_sub (Eqs. 104-110)
    Second CIB model in Section 6.2.8; benchmarked against the original Maniyar code.
  • Baryon correction model (BCM) parameters = log10 M_c,0=13.25, theta_ej=4.711, eta_star=0.2, delta=7.0, mu=1, gamma=2.5, nu=-0.038
    Fiducial values in Section 6.2.2 reproduce the BAHAMAS power spectrum; used for baryonic gas density.
  • HOD parameters = m_min, sigma_log10m, m1, m0, alpha_s, c_sat (Eqs. 84-88)
    Galaxy count and clustering predictions in Section 6.2.5 use these user-specified halo occupation parameters.
  • Lee et al. (2020) temperature-mass relation coefficients = A, B, C by redshift (Table 7)
    Section 6.2.4; used for the relativistic SZ temperature power spectrum.
  • k_damp = 0.01 Mpc^-1
    Ad hoc damping scale for the halo-model 1-halo term in Eq. (60); affects low-k power spectrum amplitude.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The flat-sky Limber approximation with k = (ell + 1/2)/chi maps 3D power spectra to angular C_ell sufficiently accurately.
    Used by default in Eq. (1) and Eq. (111); the paper notes beyond-Limber is slower and not a priority in Section 6.6.
  • domain assumption The halo-model two-halo term factorizes as <b u_X> <b u_Y> P_L, ignoring perturbative corrections.
    Eq. (52) and Section 6.1; the paper acknowledges that 2-halo damping and loop corrections are not implemented.
  • domain assumption Counter-term completion of the halo mass function at m_min satisfies the halo-model consistency conditions.
    Section 5.3, Eqs. (34)-(38), following Schmidt 2016; low-mass halo behavior is otherwise unresolved in N-body calibrations.
  • domain assumption The cosmopower emulators faithfully reproduce CLASS CMB and matter power spectra for Stage IV analyses.
    Section 3 relies on Bolliet et al. 2023 for this accuracy; the paper does not revalidate it.
  • domain assumption N-body calibrated fitting formulas (Tinker, Battaglia, etc.) can be extrapolated outside their stated calibration ranges.
    The paper warns about calibration ranges in Section 5.1 but uses the formulas anyway for high-redshift CIB and lensing calculations.
  • domain assumption The CLASS Boltzmann code provides correct background and perturbation output.
    class_sz inherits CLASS v2.9.4 output; if CLASS is wrong, class_sz inherits the error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CLASS_SZ II: Notes and Examples of Fast and Accurate Calculations of Halo Model, Large Scale Structure and Cosmic Microwave Background Observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RQXXLBB

@misc{pith2026250707346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CLASS_SZ II: Notes and Examples of Fast and Accurate Calculations of Halo Model, Large Scale Structure and Cosmic Microwave Background Observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RQXXLBB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07346}
}
abstract

These notes are very much work-in-progress and simply intended to showcase, in various degrees of details (and rigour), some of the cosmology calculations that class_sz can do. We describe the class_sz code in C, Python and Jax. Based on the Boltzmann code class, it can compute a wide range of observables relevant to current and forthcoming CMB and Large Scale Structure surveys. This includes galaxy shear and clustering, CMB lensing, thermal and kinetic Sunyaev and Zeldovich observables, Cosmic Infrared Background, cross-correlations and three-point statistics. Calculations can be done either within the halo model or the linear bias model. For standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology and extensions, class_sz uses high-accuracy cosmopower emulators of the CMB and matter power spectrum to accelerate calculations. With this, along with efficient numerical integration routines, most class_sz output can be obtained in less than 500 ms (CMB $C_\ell$'s or matter $P(k)$ take $\mathcal{O}(1\mathrm{ms})$), allowing for fast or ultra-fast parameter inference analyses. Parts of the calculations are "jaxified", so the software can be integrated into differentiable pipelines.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. CHEFT: A Hybrid Effective Field Theory halo model

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

    CHEFT recovers matter power to percent level and weighted tracers to ~3–5% by expressing the halo-halo spectrum as a sum of collapsed HEFT operators with probabilistic mass-dependent biases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [4]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 571, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322093

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322093 2014

  4. [5]

    E., Contreras, S., et al

    Aric \`o , G., Angulo, R. E., Contreras, S., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 506, 4070, 10.1093/mnras/stab1911

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1911 2021

  5. [6]

    Arnaud , M., Pointecouteau , E., & Pratt , G. W. 2005, , 441, 893, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052856

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052856 2005

  6. [7]

    W., Piffaretti , R., et al

    Arnaud , M., Pratt , G. W., Piffaretti , R., et al. 2010, , 517, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913416

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913416 2010

  7. [8]

    2013, JCAP, 1302, 001, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001

    Audren, B., Lesgourgues, J., Benabed, K., & Prunet, S. 2013, JCAP, 1302, 001, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/001 2013

  8. [9]

    J., Kay, S

    Barnes, D. J., Kay, S. T., Henson, M. A., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 465, 213, 10.1093/mnras/stw2722

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2722 2017

Show all 118 references
  1. [10]

    2016, , 2016, 058, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/058

    Battaglia , N. 2016, , 2016, 058, 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/08/058

    2016 doi

  2. [11]

    R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J

    Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J. L. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 75, 10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/75

    2012 doi

  3. [12]

    A., & Weinberg, D

    Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2002, Astrophys. J., 575, 587, 10.1086/341469

    2002 doi

  4. [13]

    2002, Physics Reports, 367, 1–248, 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7

    Bernardeau, F., Colombi, S., Gaztañaga, E., & Scoccimarro, R. 2002, Physics Reports, 367, 1–248, 10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00135-7

    2002 doi

  5. [15]

    2013 b , , 766, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/32

    ---. 2013 b , , 766, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/32

    2013 doi

  6. [16]

    2011, , 2011, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    Blas , D., Lesgourgues , J., & Tram , T. 2011, , 2011, 034, 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/07/034

    2011 doi

  7. [17]

    Bocquet, S., Saro, A., Dolag, K., & Mohr, J. J. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 456, 2361, 10.1093/mnras/stv2657

    2016 doi

  8. [18]

    2020, Mon

    Bolliet, B., Brinckmann, T., Chluba, J., & Lesgourgues, J. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 497, 1332, 10.1093/mnras/staa1835

    2020 doi

  9. [19]

    Bolliet, B., Comis, B., Komatsu, E., & Mac\' as-P\'erez, J. F. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 477, 4957, 10.1093/mnras/sty823

    2018 doi

  10. [20]

    C., Ferraro , S., Kusiak , A., & Krolewski , A

    Bolliet , B., Hill , J. C., Ferraro , S., Kusiak , A., & Krolewski , A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.07847, 10.48550/arXiv.2208.07847

    2022 doi arXiv

  11. [21]

    C., et al

    Bolliet, B., Spurio Mancini, A., Hill, J. C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints. 2303.01591

    2023 arXiv

  12. [22]

    R., Cole , S., Efstathiou , G., & Kaiser , N

    Bond , J. R., Cole , S., Efstathiou , G., & Kaiser , N. 1991, , 379, 440, 10.1086/170520

    1991 doi

  13. [23]

    1973, Algorithms for minimization without derivatives (Prentice-Hall)

    Brent, R. 1973, Algorithms for minimization without derivatives (Prentice-Hall)

    1973

  14. [24]

    Brinckmann, T., & Lesgourgues, J. 2018. 1804.07261

    2018 arXiv

  15. [25]

    L., & Norman, M

    Bryan, G. L., & Norman, M. L. 1998, 495, 80, 10.1086/305262

    1998 doi

  16. [26]

    2009, , 80, 043531, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.043531

    Carlson , J., White , M., & Padmanabhan , N. 2009, , 80, 043531, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.043531

    2009 doi

  17. [27]

    C., Johnson, M

    Cayuso, J., Bloch, R., Hotinli, S. C., Johnson, M. C., & McCarthy, F. 2021. 2111.11526

    2021 arXiv

  18. [28]

    1999, , 510, 930, 10.1086/306627

    Challinor , A., & Lasenby , A. 1999, , 510, 930, 10.1086/306627

    1999 doi

  19. [29]

    C., & Abitbol , M

    Chluba , J., Hill , J. C., & Abitbol , M. H. 2017, , 472, 1195, 10.1093/mnras/stx1982

    2017 doi

  20. [31]

    Chluba, J., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 1294–1314, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19786.x

    2011

  21. [32]

    Cooray, A., & Sheth, R. K. 2002, Phys. Rept., 372, 1, 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00276-4

    2002 doi

  22. [33]

    2008, Phys

    Dalal, N., Dore, O., Huterer, D., & Shirokov, A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123514, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123514

    2008 doi

  23. [34]

    2019, Astrophys

    Diemer, B., & Joyce, M. 2019, Astrophys. J., 871, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafad6

    2019 doi

  24. [35]

    Diemer, B., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2015, Astrophys. J., 799, 108, 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/108

    2015 doi

  25. [36]

    2020, Modern Cosmology (Elsevier Science)

    Dodelson, S., & Schmidt, F. 2020, Modern Cosmology (Elsevier Science). https://books.google.com/books?id=GGjfywEACAAJ

    2020

  26. [37]

    2016, Mon

    Dolag, K., Komatsu, E., & Sunyaev, R. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 463, 1797, 10.1093/mnras/stw2035

    2016 doi

  27. [38]

    R., Schaye, J., Kay, S

    Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 390, L64–L68, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x

    2008

  28. [39]

    A., & Macci\`o, A

    Dutton, A. A., & Macci\`o, A. V. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 441, 3359, 10.1093/mnras/stu742

    2014 doi

  29. [40]

    2018, Mon

    Erler, J., Basu, K., Chluba, J., & Bertoldi, F. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 476, 3360, 10.1093/mnras/sty327

    2018 doi

  30. [41]

    Frigo, M., & Johnson, S. G. 2005, Proceedings of the IEEE, 93, 216

    2005

  31. [42]

    Fry , J. N. 1984, , 279, 499, 10.1086/161913

    1984 doi

  32. [43]

    Galassi, M. e. a. 2018, GNU Scientific Library Reference Manual. https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/

    2018

  33. [44]

    2012, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012, 047–047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/02/047

    Gil-Marín, H., Wagner, C., Fragkoudi, F., Jimenez, R., & Verde, L. 2012, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2012, 047–047, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/02/047

    2012 doi

  34. [45]

    K., & Schneider, A

    Giri, S. K., & Schneider, A. 2021, JCAP, 12, 046, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/12/046

    2021 doi

  35. [46]

    E., Lacey, C

    Gonz \' a lez, J. E., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 749, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18169.x

    2011

  36. [47]

    H., Grinstein, B., Rey, S

    Goroff, M. H., Grinstein, B., Rey, S. J., & Wise, M. B. 1986, Astrophys. J., 311, 6, 10.1086/164749

    1986 doi

  37. [49]

    Hill, J. C. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083542, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083542

    2018 doi

  38. [50]

    C., & Pajer , E

    Hill , J. C., & Pajer , E. 2013, , 88, 063526, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.063526

    2013 doi

  39. [51]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1674, 10.1093/mnras/stv702

    Hoffmann, K., Bel, J., & Gaztañaga, E. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1674, 10.1093/mnras/stv702

    2015 doi

  40. [52]

    1998, , 502, 7, 10.1086/305876

    Itoh , N., Kohyama , Y., & Nozawa , S. 1998, , 502, 7, 10.1086/305876

    1998 doi

  41. [54]

    Jiang, F., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 440, 193, 10.1093/mnras/stu280

    2014 doi

  42. [55]

    A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J

    Klypin, A. A., Trujillo-Gomez, S., & Primack, J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 740, 102, 10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/102

    2011 doi

  43. [56]

    2002, , 336, 1256, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05889.x

    Komatsu , E., & Seljak , U. 2002, , 336, 1256, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05889.x

    2002

  44. [57]

    Komatsu, E., & Spergel, D. N. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 063002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.063002

    2001 doi

  45. [58]

    Koukoufilippas, N., Alonso, D., Bilicki, M., & Peacock, J. A. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 491, 5464, 10.1093/mnras/stz3351

    2020 doi

  46. [59]

    Kusiak, A., Bolliet, B., Krolewski, A., & Hill, J. C. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.123517

    2022 doi

  47. [60]

    M., & Hill, J

    Kusiak, A., Surrao, K. M., & Hill, J. C. 2023. 2303.08121

    2023 arXiv

  48. [61]

    T., & Barnes, D

    Lee, E., Chluba, J., Kay, S. T., & Barnes, D. J. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 493, 3274, 10.1093/mnras/staa450

    2020 doi

  49. [62]

    2022, 10.1093/mnras/stac2781

    Lee, E., Anbajagane, D., Singh, P., et al. 2022, 10.1093/mnras/stac2781

    2022 doi

  50. [63]

    2011 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1104.2932, 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932

    Lesgourgues , J. 2011 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1104.2932, 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2932

    2011 doi arXiv

  51. [64]

    2011 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1104.2934, 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2934

    ---. 2011 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1104.2934, 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2934

    2011 doi arXiv

  52. [65]

    2000, Astrophys

    Lewis, A., Challinor, A., & Lasenby, A. 2000, Astrophys. J., 538, 473, 10.1086/309179

    2000 doi

  53. [66]

    2019, mcfit: Multiplicatively Convolutional Fast Integral Transforms , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.017

    Li , Y. 2019, mcfit: Multiplicatively Convolutional Fast Integral Transforms , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.017

    2019

  54. [67]

    Limber , D. N. 1957, , 125, 9, 10.1086/146280

    1957 doi

  55. [68]

    2008, Phys

    LoVerde, M., & Afshordi, N. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 123506, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123506

    2008 doi

  56. [69]

    2021, , 645, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038790

    Maniyar , A., B \'e thermin , M., & Lagache , G. 2021, , 645, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038790

    2021 doi

  57. [70]

    C., & Madhavacheril, M

    McCarthy, F., Hill, J. C., & Madhavacheril, M. S. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023517, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023517

    2022 doi

  58. [71]

    McCarthy, F., & Madhavacheril, M. S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 103515, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103515

    2021 doi

  59. [72]

    G., Schaye , J., Bird , S., & Le Brun , A

    McCarthy , I. G., Schaye , J., Bird , S., & Le Brun , A. M. C. 2017, , 465, 2936, 10.1093/mnras/stw2792

    2017 doi

  60. [74]

    2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 1401–1422, 10.1093/mnras/stab082

    ---. 2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 1401–1422, 10.1093/mnras/stab082

    2021 doi

  61. [76]

    2015 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1958–1975, 10.1093/mnras/stv2036

    ---. 2015 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 1958–1975, 10.1093/mnras/stv2036

    2015 doi

  62. [77]

    J., & White, S

    Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 282, 347–361, 10.1093/mnras/282.2.347

    1996 doi

  63. [78]

    S., Ferraro, S., Johnson, M

    M\"unchmeyer, M., Madhavacheril, M. S., Ferraro, S., Johnson, M. C., & Smith, K. M. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 083508, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083508

    2019 doi

  64. [80]

    V., & Vikhlinin , A

    Nagai , D., Kravtsov , A. V., & Vikhlinin , A. 2007, , 668, 1, 10.1086/521328

    2007 doi

  65. [81]

    T., & Suto, Y

    Nakamura, T. T., & Suto, Y. 1997, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 97, 49–81, 10.1143/ptp.97.49

    1997 doi

  66. [82]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, Astrophys. J., 462, 563, 10.1086/177173

    1996 doi

  67. [84]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493, 10.1086/304888

    1997 doi

  68. [85]

    2020, Physical Review D, 101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.043525

    Pandey, S., Baxter, E., & Hill, J. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.043525

    2020 doi

  69. [86]

    Pandey, S., Gatti, M., Baxter, E., et al. 2021. 2108.01601

    2021

  70. [87]

    Patterson, T. N. L. 1968, Mathematics of Computation, 22, 847, 10.1090/s0025-5718-68-99866-9

    1968 doi

  71. [88]

    H., Spergel, D

    Philcox, O. H., Spergel, D. N., & Villaescusa-Navarro, F. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.123520

    2020 doi

  72. [89]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2013, , 550, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220040

    2013 doi

  73. [90]

    H., & Schechter , P

    Press , W. H., & Schechter , P. 1974, , 187, 425, 10.1086/152650

    1974 doi

  74. [91]

    2019, Mon

    Remazeilles, M., Bolliet, B., Rotti, A., & Chluba, J. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 483, 3459, 10.1093/mnras/sty3352

    2019 doi

  75. [92]

    2020, , 494, 5734, 10.1093/mnras/staa1135

    Remazeilles , M., & Chluba , J. 2020, , 494, 5734, 10.1093/mnras/staa1135

    2020 doi

  76. [93]

    2021, Mon

    Rotti, A., Bolliet, B., Chluba, J., & Remazeilles, M. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 503, 5310, 10.1093/mnras/stab469

    2021 doi

  77. [94]

    Roy, A., van Engelen, A., Gluscevic, V., & Battaglia, N. 2022. 2201.05076

    2022 arXiv

  78. [95]

    Ruggeri, R., et al. 2022. 2208.01031

    2022 arXiv

  79. [96]

    C., & Bolliet, B

    Sabyr, A., Hill, J. C., & Bolliet, B. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.023529

    2022 doi

  80. [97]

    A., & Prada, F

    Sanchez-Conde, M. A., & Prada, F. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2271, 10.1093/mnras/stu1014

    2014 doi

  81. [98]

    Y., & Sunyaev , R

    Sazonov , S. Y., & Sunyaev , R. A. 1998, , 508, 1, 10.1086/306406

    1998 doi

  82. [99]

    J., & Bertschinger , E

    Scherrer , R. J., & Bertschinger , E. 1991, , 381, 349, 10.1086/170658

    1991 doi

  83. [100]

    2016, Physical Review D, 93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.063512

    Schmidt, F. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.063512

    2016 doi

  84. [101]

    2015, JCAP, 12, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    Schneider, A., & Teyssier, R. 2015, JCAP, 12, 049, 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/049

    2015 doi

  85. [102]

    2019, JCAP, 03, 020, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020

    Schneider, A., Teyssier, R., Stadel, J., et al. 2019, JCAP, 03, 020, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/020

    2019 doi

  86. [103]

    Scoccimarro, R., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2001, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 325, 1312, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04281.x

    2001

  87. [104]

    K., Hui, L., & Jain, B

    Scoccimarro, R., Sheth, R. K., Hui, L., & Jain, B. 2001, Astrophys. J., 546, 20, 10.1086/318261

    2001 doi

  88. [105]

    2000, Mon

    Seljak, U. 2000, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 318, 203, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03715.x

    2000

  89. [106]

    Shang , C., Haiman , Z., Knox , L., & Oh , S. P. 2012, , 421, 2832, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20510.x

    2012

  90. [107]

    2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 056, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    Simons Observatory . 2019, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 056, 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/02/056

    2019 doi

  91. [108]

    M., Madhavacheril, M

    Smith, K. M., Madhavacheril, M. S., M\"unchmeyer, M., et al. 2018. 1810.13423

    2018 arXiv

  92. [109]

    Spurio Mancini , A., Piras , D., Alsing , J., Joachimi , B., & Hobson , M. P. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1771, 10.1093/mnras/stac064

    2022 doi

  93. [110]

    P., Ellis, R

    Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., Bunker, A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 1493, 10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1493

    2009 doi

  94. [111]

    A., Bond, J

    Stein, G., Alvarez, M. A., Bond, J. R., van Engelen, A., & Battaglia, N. 2020, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 012, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/10/012

    2020 doi

  95. [112]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab908d

    Takahashi, R., Nishimichi, T., Namikawa, T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab908d

    2020 doi

  96. [113]

    2012, Astrophys

    Takahashi, R., Sato, M., Nishimichi, T., Taruya, A., & Oguri, M. 2012, Astrophys. J., 761, 152, 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/152

    2012 doi

  97. [114]

    V., Klypin, A., et al

    Tinker, J., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, 709–728, 10.1086/591439

    2008 doi

  98. [115]

    L., Robertson , B

    Tinker , J. L., Robertson , B. E., Kravtsov , A. V., et al. 2010, , 724, 878, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/878

    2010 doi

  99. [116]

    L., & Wetzel , A

    Tinker , J. L., & Wetzel , A. R. 2010, , 719, 88, 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/88

    2010 doi

  100. [117]

    2021, JCAP, 05, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    Torrado, J., & Lewis, A. 2021, JCAP, 05, 057, 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/057

    2021 doi

  101. [118]

    C., More, S., Cacciato, M., Mo, H., & Yang, X

    van den Bosch, F. C., More, S., Cacciato, M., Mo, H., & Yang, X. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 725, 10.1093/mnras/sts006

    2013 doi

  102. [119]

    P., Wang, L., Zemcov, M., et al

    Viero, M. P., Wang, L., Zemcov, M., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 77, 10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/77

    2013 doi

  103. [120]

    Wright , E. L. 1979, , 232, 348, 10.1086/157294

    1979 doi

  104. [121]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 3119–3147, 10.1093/mnras/stab3155

    Zacharegkas, G., Chang, C., Prat, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 3119–3147, 10.1093/mnras/stab3155

    2021 doi

  105. [122]

    H., et al

    Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 59, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/59

    2011 doi

  106. [124]

    H., Jing, Y

    Zhao, D. H., Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., & Börner, G. 2009 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 707, 354, 10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/354

    2009 doi

  107. [125]

    L., & Zehavi, I

    Zheng, Z., Coil, A. L., & Zehavi, I. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 760–779, 10.1086/521074

    2007 doi

  108. [126]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Zheng, Z., Berlind, A. A., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2005, Astrophys. J., 633, 791, 10.1086/466510

    2005 doi

  109. [127]

    2024, JCAP, 11, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/018

    Zubeldia, \'I ., & Bolliet, B. 2024, JCAP, 11, 018, 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/11/018

    2024 doi

  110. [128]

    2015, Astron

    Zuntz, J., Paterno, M., Jennings, E., et al. 2015, Astron. Comput., 12, 45, 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.05.005

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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