Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Cosmological N-body simulations: a challenge for scalable generative models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A patch-based GAN can produce 256³ N-body cubes that pass the eye test but miss rare peaks cosmologists need.

desk verdict A useful, honest benchmark paper with a working 3D generator; the ranking metric needs error bars and Eq (1) has a typo. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05519 v2 pith:7BPOJT6T submitted 2019-08-15 physics.comp-ph astro-ph.COcs.LGeess.IV

Nathanaël Perraudin , Ankit Srivastava , Aurelien Lucchi , Tomasz Kacprzak , Thomas Hofmann , Alexandre Réfrégier This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phastro-ph.COcs.LGeess.IV
keywords generativeadversarialnetworkscosmologicalN-bodysimulationscosmicwebscalableGAN3Dvoxelgenerationbenchmarksummarystatisticsfast
open problems Dark Matter
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

Deep generative models can emulate expensive cosmological simulations only if they scale to three-dimensional volumes; this paper tries to establish the first workable baseline by combining patch-by-patch generation with multi-scale conditioning in a chain of Wasserstein GANs. The chain produces cubes of 256×256×256 volume cells (voxels) in about seven seconds, while the fast approximate simulator that generated the training data runs for hours. The authors show that the fake cubes are visually convincing and agree with real simulations on mid-range mass histograms, the shape of the power spectrum, and peak statistics, but the power spectrum amplitude is too high and the rare high-density tail is poorly reproduced. Their stated conclusion is that the agreement is promising but not yet sufficient for practical cosmology, and they release the dataset and evaluation routines so that later generators can be scored on the same benchmark.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a pyramid of three independently trained Wasserstein GANs (a GAN variant that trains with a distance between distributions) tied together by "conditioning on neighborhood." At each upscaling stage the generator emits the next 32³ patch in a raster-scan order, and both generator and discriminator receive the seven already-generated border cubes plus a down-sampled version of the whole image, so each patch is produced as a function of its context instead of in isolation. This keeps GPU memory bounded because only patches are generated at full resolution, while the down-sampled conditioning preserves the global features that a patch-only model loses. A second supporting mechanism is the voxel-value transform: a function that is logarithmic below a cutoff and linear above it, which compresses the dynamic range of dark-matter densities before training and is inverted before statistics are evaluated. The comparison with the uni-scale variant is what shows the multi-scale conditioning is doing the work: without it, the model collapses into repeating patterns and scores near zero.

What would settle it

Resample the 30 real cubes with replacement (bootstrapping), recompute the covariance matrices that enter the Fréchet distance, and report the spread of the S* scores; if the spread is comparable to or larger than the gap between the multiscale and uni-scale scores, the benchmark cannot distinguish the models. Alternatively, retrain the pipeline on a different set of 30 cubes, or on 300 cubes, and check whether the multiscale and reference scores change enough to alter the ranking.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a scalable generator of three-dimensional N-body cubes is achievable with a multi-scale, patch-by-patch Wasserstein GAN, and that its quality can be measured by standard cosmological summary statistics. Generation is done in three independent stages: a base GAN draws a latent vector and outputs a 32³ cube; a second GAN builds a 64³ cube patch by patch, where each 32³ patch is conditioned on seven previously generated neighboring border cubes and on the down-sampled global cube; a third GAN repeats the conditioning scheme to assemble a 256³ cube from 512 patches. In the authors' evaluation, which measures the Fréchet distance between Gaussian fits to log summary statistics (S*), the full multiscale pipeline reaches S* scores of 2.72 for the power spectrum, 5.72 for the mass histogram, and 0.63 for the peak histogram, far above the uni-scale variant that lacks the down-sampled conditioning (0.01, 0.15, 0.07) but below the reference scores computed by comparing two halves of the real data (8.16, 1433, 8.17). The paper states bluntly that the overall level of agreement cannot yet be considered sufficient for practical applications in cosmology.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the evaluation scores, computed from only 30 real N-body cubes (and 15 per split for the reference score), give stable estimates of the means and covariances of the summary statistics; if those estimates are too noisy, the benchmark numbers and the model ranking lose their meaning, even if the visual and qualitative conclusions survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Once accuracy improves, a trained three-stage generator makes a 256³ cube in about 7 seconds on a single GPU node, versus roughly 6 to 8 hours for the fast approximate simulator that produced the training data—a speedup of about three orders of magnitude.
  • The stark score gap between multiscale and uni-scale models (power-spectrum S* of 2.72 versus 0.01) shows that conditioning on a down-sampled global view is what prevents mode collapse and repeating patches in patch-by-patch 3D generation.
  • The benchmark sets a quantitative target: a generator useful for cosmology must lift its S* scores toward the reference scores computed from two disjoint sets of real cubes, and in particular must reproduce the high-density tail of the mass and peak histograms and the correct power-spectrum amplitude.
  • Because the same pyramid can be extended with more stages, the multi-scale conditioning recipe is a candidate template for generating larger volumes—for example survey-sized light cones—once the current failure modes are addressed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not in the paper: because the S* score is built from Gaussian fits to log statistics with only 30 real cubes, the numerical gaps between models are probably noisy; a fair comparison would attach bootstrap error bars to each score before claiming one architecture beats another.
  • The paper lists conditioning on cosmic time or cosmological parameters as future work; if the down-sampled conditioning works as well as the multiscale results suggest, a conditional version of this pipeline could generate cubes for many cosmologies from one training run, which would make the emulator useful for survey forecasts.
  • A testable extension aimed at the paper's main failure mode: generate the rare high-density peaks first with a dedicated model, then fill in the surrounding web conditioned on those positions, which directly targets the histogram tail that the current GAN misses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a benchmark task for generating three-dimensional cosmological N-body density cubes with deep generative models, and presents a scalable multi-scale patch-based WGAN pipeline as a baseline. The pipeline first generates a 32^3 cube with a DCGAN (M3), then uses two conditioned upsampling GANs to generate 64^3 (M2) and 256^3 (M1) cubes patch-by-patch, conditioning each patch on neighboring patches and on a downsampled version of the target volume. The authors evaluate their model with three cosmological summary statistics (mass histogram, power spectrum density, peak histogram) using a Fréchet-distance-based score S*, and compare against a uniscale baseline. They report visually plausible 256^3 cubes, good statistical agreement in the mid-density range, an over-amplified power spectrum, and underproduction of rare high-density peaks, and conclude that the model is promising but not yet sufficient for practical cosmological applications.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper delivers a useful public benchmark and a reproducible baseline architecture for 3D generative emulation of the cosmic web, with data and code released. The evaluation uses external cosmological summary statistics rather than training-based metrics, which is a strength, and the authors are explicit about the model's limitations. The contribution is best understood as a starting point and a testbed for future methods rather than a production-ready emulator. However, the quantitative ranking via the S* score is currently not robust enough to serve as a definitive model-comparison tool, so the benchmark's headline numbers need supporting uncertainty quantification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (1)] The printed Fréchet distance is mathematically incorrect as written: the trace term should be Tr(C_r + C_f - 2(C_r C_f)^{1/2}) rather than Tr(C_r + C_f - 2 C_r C_f). Since every S* value in Table 1 is derived from this distance, the authors should correct the formula and confirm that the released code implements the corrected expression. If the code contains the same error, the scores and the reference values should be recomputed.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 and Table 1] The S* scores are point estimates computed from only 30 real cubes, with only 15 real samples per side for the reference score, while the statistic vectors have many bins. The sample covariance matrices are therefore rank-deficient, and the Fréchet distances have no error bars or bootstrap confidence intervals. The paper itself concedes in Sec. 4.1 that the low number of samples does not allow very accurate statistics. Without uncertainty quantification or a dimensionality reduction step, the numerical ranking in Table 1 is not demonstrably stable across different draws of the training set. This does not invalidate the qualitative conclusions, which are directly visible in Figures 5-12, but it does weaken the quantitative benchmark claim.
  3. [Sec. 2.4] The interpretation of the reference score as the best achievable score is not fully justified under the small-sample regime. Because the reference distance is itself estimated from 15 real samples, its own estimation error is large, and it is unclear whether a score above or below the reference has the meaning the paper assigns to it. The accompanying discussion of how estimation error propagates through the mean and covariance terms is helpful, but the paper should connect that discussion to explicit uncertainty intervals for the reported S* values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses "VAs" where "VAEs" is the standard abbreviation; consider using the full term or a more common acronym.
  2. [Fig. 12] The horizontal axis of the power spectrum panel in Figure 12 is labeled "l" whereas the corresponding panels in Figures 6, 8, and 10 use "k"; this should be made consistent.
  3. [Appendix C] There are several typographical issues in the architecture tables and text, including "Sride" for "Stride", "inputed" for "input", and the Dense layer entry "Dense (6416)" which appears to mean "Dense (64,16)".
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence "We refer to three image types of different sizes" is unclear; it should read "We consider three image types" or similar.
  5. [Eq. (2)] The expression for S* is missing a closing parenthesis in the denominator; as printed it reads "1/d2((mr,Cr), (mf,Cf)".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the S* evaluation is external to training, and the central claims rest on independently defined cosmological statistics.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's central claims. The proposed generator (multiscale patch-based WGAN) is trained with the Wasserstein-GAN objective in Section 3.1, and the evaluation in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 uses three standard cosmological summary statistics (mass histogram, power spectrum, peak histogram) that are defined independently of the model and computed after training by comparing generated cubes with real cubes. The S* score in Eq. (2) is a Fréchet distance between multivariate Gaussians fitted to log-transformed statistics; no generator parameter is fitted to S*, and the multiscale-versus-uniscale comparison in Table 1 is a comparison of two trained models rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The reference score, computed by comparing two splits of 15 real samples, is an internal consistency baseline and is not an input to the model. The self-citations to the authors' earlier 2D GAN work [6] for the choice of summary statistics and to [48] for GAN evaluation are not load-bearing: the statistics are standard cosmological observables and the evaluation code is publicly released, so the cited support does not reduce to an unverified assertion by the authors. The paper explicitly qualifies its statistical accuracy ('The overall level of agreement is promising, but can not yet be considered as sufficient for practical applications in cosmology') and acknowledges the small-sample limitation ('the low number of samples and the size of each of them does not allow us to compute very accurate statistics'), which is a robustness concern rather than circularity. The apparent missing matrix square root in Eq. (1) is a technical formula issue and does not fall under the circularity categories. I find no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on two hand-tuned preprocessing constants, a standard isotropy assumption, and the choice of sufficient statistics; no new physical entities are introduced. The reliability of the benchmark additionally depends on the evaluation sample size (30 real cubes), which is a data limitation.

free parameters (1)
  • Log-linear transform cutoff c and shift s = c = 20,000, s = 3
    Hand-selected in Appendix A to map the heavily skewed voxel counts (range 0 to 185,874) to a learnable one-sided Laplacian-like distribution. These values are tuned for this dataset and shape the generator's training target, although the transform is inverted before evaluation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The matter distribution is homogeneous and isotropic on the scale of the simulation boxes, so rotations by multiples of 90 degrees and circular translations do not change the data distribution (Appendix B).
    Invoked to justify data augmentation of the 30 training cubes; if the boxes are too small for isotropy, the augmented training set would misrepresent the true distribution.
  • domain assumption The mass histogram, power spectrum, and peak histogram are sufficient summary statistics for comparing generative models on this benchmark (Section 2.3).
    Stated as a working choice; if important features such as phase correlations or higher-order moments are missed, a model could score well on S* while failing physically.
  • domain assumption The 256^3 voxel histogram representation is adequate for representing the matter distribution for the intended applications (Section 1).
    The authors note this holds 'if the resolution of the voxel cube is high enough'; a coarser resolution would erase small-scale structure important for cosmology.
  • standard math The Fréchet distance between two multivariate Gaussian approximations is a valid metric for the log-summary-statistics (Dowson-Landau 1982, cited as ref 53).
    Used in Eq. (1) and (2) to define the S* score; the Gaussian approximation is a simplifying assumption, especially with small samples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological N-body simulations: a challenge for scalable generative models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BPOJT6T

@misc{pith2026190805519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological N-body simulations: a challenge for scalable generative models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BPOJT6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05519}
}
read the original abstract

Deep generative models, such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) or Variational Autoencoders (VAs) have been demonstrated to produce images of high visual quality. However, the existing hardware severely limits the size of the images that can be generated. The rapid growth of high dimensional data in many fields of science therefore poses a significant challenge for generative models. In cosmology, the large-scale, three-dimensional matter distribution, modeled with N-body simulations, plays a crucial role in understanding the evolution of the universe. As these simulations are computationally very expensive, GANs have recently generated interest as a possible method to emulate these datasets, but they have been, so far, mostly limited to two dimensional data. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark for the generation of three dimensional N-body simulations, in order to stimulate new ideas in the machine learning community and move closer to the practical use of generative models in cosmology. As a first benchmark result, we propose a scalable GAN approach for training a generator of N-body three-dimensional cubes. Our technique relies on two key building blocks, (i) splitting the generation of the high-dimensional data into smaller parts, and (ii) using a multi-scale approach that efficiently captures global image features that might otherwise be lost in the splitting process. We evaluate the performance of our model for the generation of N-body samples using various statistical measures commonly used in cosmology. Our results show that the proposed model produces samples of high visual quality, although the statistical analysis reveals that capturing rare features in the data poses significant problems for the generative models. We make the data, quality evaluation routines, and the proposed GAN architecture publicly available at https://github.com/nperraud/3DcosmoGAN

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial nets (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Karras, T., Aila, T., Laine, S., Lehtinen, J.: Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    nature 435, 629–636 (2005)

    Springel, V., White, S.D.M., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., Yoshida, N., Gao, L., Navarro, J., Thacker, R., Croton, D., Helly, J., Peacock, J.A., Cole, S., Thomas, P., Couchman, H., Evrard, A., Colberg, J., Pearce, F.: Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars. nature 435, 629–636 (2005). doi:10.1038/nature03597. astro-ph/0504097

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Potter, D., Stadel, J., Teyssier, R.: PKDGRAV3: beyond trillion particle cosmological simulations for the next era of galaxy surveys (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Physics of the Dark Universe 1(1-2), 50–93 (2012)

    Kuhlen, M., Vogelsberger, M., Angulo, R.: Numerical simulations of the dark universe: State of the art and the next decade. Physics of the Dark Universe 1(1-2), 50–93 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.dark.2012.10.002. 1209.5745

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology 5(1), 4 (2018)

    Rodr ´ ıguez, A.C., Kacprzak, T., Lucchi, A., Amara, A., Sgier, R., Fluri, J., Hofmann, T., R´ efr´ egier, A.: Fast cosmic web simulations with generative adversarial networks. Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology 5(1), 4 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology 6(1), 1 (2019)

    Mustafa, M., Bard, D., Bhimji, W., Luki´ c, Z., Al-Rfou, R., Kratochvil, J.M.: CosmoGAN: creating high-fidelity weak lensing convergence maps using Generative Adversarial Networks. Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology 6(1), 1 (2019). doi:10.1186/s40668-019-0029-9. 1706.02390

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Bond, J.R., Kofman, L., Pogosyan, D.: How filaments of galaxies are woven into the cosmic web (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Dietrich, J.P., Werner, N., Clowe, D., Finoguenov, A., Kitching, T., Miller, L., Simionescu, A.: A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Zhu, J.-Y., Park, T., Isola, P., Efros, A.A.: Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Satoshi Iizuka, E.S.-S., Ishikawa, H.: Globally and locally consistent image completion (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Kingma, D.P., Welling, M.: Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    van den Oord, A., Kalchbrenner, N., Vinyals, O., Espeholt, L., Graves, A., Kavukcuoglu, K.: Conditional image generation with PixelCNN decoders (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Achlioptas, P., Diamanti, O., Mitliagkas, I., Guibas, L.: Learning Representations and Generative Models for 3D Point Clouds (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Fan, H., Su, H., Guibas, L.J.: A point set generation network for 3D object reconstruction from a single image. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 605–613 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Wu, J., Zhang, C., Xue, T., Freeman, B., Tenenbaum, J.: Learning a probabilistic latent space of object shapes via 3D generative-adversarial modeling. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 82–90 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Physical Review E 96(4), 043309 (2017)

    Mosser, L., Dubrule, O., Blunt, M.J.: Reconstruction of three-dimensional porous media using generative adversarial neural networks. Physical Review E 96(4), 043309 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Denton, E., Chintala, S., Szlam, A., Fergus, R.: Deep Generative Image Models using a Laplacian Pyramid of Adversarial Networks (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    : Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network

    Ledig, C., Theis, L., Husz´ ar, F., Caballero, J., Cunningham, A., Acosta, A., Aitken, A., Tejani, A., Totz, J., Wang, Z., et al. : Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision a...

    2017

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Lai, W.-S., Huang, J.-B., Ahuja, N., Yang, M.-H.: Deep laplacian pyramid networks for fast and accurate super-resolution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 624–632 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pp

    Wang, X., Yu, K., Wu, S., Gu, J., Liu, Y., Dong, C., Qiao, Y., Change Loy, C.: Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pp. 0–0 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Brock, A., Donahue, J., Simonyan, K.: Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Luˇ ci´ c, M., Tschannen, M., Ritter, M., Zhai, X., Bachem, O., Gelly, S.: High-fidelity image generation with fewer labels, 4183–4192 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    MNRAS 475(3), 3165–3190 (2018)

    Chang, C., Pujol, A., Mawdsley, B., Bacon, D., Elvin-Poole, J., Melchior, P., Kov´ acs, A., Jain, B., Leistedt, B., Giannantonio, T.: Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: curved-sky weak lensing mass map. MNRAS 475(3), 3165–3190 (2018). doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3363. 1708.01535

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    In: Bonometto, S., Primack, J.R., Provenzale, A

    Schmalzing, J., Kerscher, M., Buchert, T.: Minkowski Functionals in Cosmology. In: Bonometto, S., Primack, J.R., Provenzale, A. (eds.) Dark Matter in the Universe, p. 281 (1996). astro-ph/9508154

    1996 arXiv

  18. [26]

    arXiv e-prints, 1811–06533 (2018)

    He, S., Li, Y., Feng, Y., Ho, S., Ravanbakhsh, S., Chen, W., P´ oczos, B.: Learning to Predict the Cosmological Structure Formation. arXiv e-prints, 1811–06533 (2018). 1811.06533

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Regier, J., McAuliffe, J., Prabhat: A deep generative model for astronomical images of galaxies (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    MNRAS 487(1), 24–29 (2019)

    Tr¨ oster, T., Ferguson, C., Harnois-D´ eraps, J., McCarthy, I.G.: Painting with baryons: augmenting N-body simulations with gas using deep generative models. MNRAS 487(1), 24–29 (2019). doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz075. 1903.12173

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Schawinski, K., Zhang, C., Zhang, H., Fowler, L., Santhanam, G.K.: Generative adversarial networks recover features in astrophysical images of galaxies beyond the deconvolution limit (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    MNRAS 485(2), 2617–2627 (2019)

    Reiman, D.M., G¨ ohre, B.E.: Deblending galaxy superpositions with branched generative adversarial networks. MNRAS 485(2), 2617–2627 (2019). doi:10.1093/mnras/stz575. 1810.10098

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    arXiv e-prints, 1903–10524 (2019)

    Kodi Ramanah, D., Charnock, T., Lavaux, G.: Painting halos from 3D dark matter fields using Wasserstein mapping networks. arXiv e-prints, 1903–10524 (2019). 1903.10524

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Coles, P., Chiang, L.Y.: Characterizing the nonlinear growth of large-scale structure in the Universe (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    Forero-Romero, J.E., Hoffman, Y., Gottl¨ ober, S., Klypin, A., Yepes, G.: A dynamical classification of the cosmic web (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    : Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing

    Abbott, T.M.C., Abdalla, F.B., Alarcon, A., Aleksi´ c, J., Allam, S., Allen, S., Amara, A., Annis, J., Asorey, J., Avila, S., et al. : Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing. Physical Review D 98(4), 043526 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Hildebrandt, H., Viola, M., Heymans, C., Joudaki, S., Kuijken, K., Blake, C., Erben, T., Joachimi, B., Klaes, D., Miller, L., Morrison, C.B., Nakajima, R., Kleijn, G.V., Amon, A., Choi, A., Covone, G., de Jong, J.T.A., Dvornik, A., Conti, I.F., Grado, A., Harnois-D´ eraps, J.,...

    2017

  28. [36]

    Joudaki, S., Mead, A., Blake, C., Choi, A., de Jong, J., Erben, T., Conti, I.F., Herbonnet, R., Heymans, C., Hildebrandt, H., Hoekstra, Perraudin et al. Page 16 of 17 H., Joachimi, B., Klaes, D., K¨ ohlinger, F., Kuijken, K., McFarland, J., Miller, L., Schneider, P., Viola, M....

    2017

  29. [37]

    Springel, V.: The cosmological simulation code GADGET-2 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Galaxy lensing mocks from all-sky lensing maps (2015)

    Fosalba, P., Gazta˜ naga, E., Castander, F.J., , Crocce, M.: The MICE Grand Challenge light-cone simulation - III. Galaxy lensing mocks from all-sky lensing maps (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Busha, M.T., Wechsler, R.H., Becker, M.R., Erickson, B., Evrard, A.E.: Catalog Production for the DES Blind Cosmology Challenge (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Teyssier, R., Pires, S., Prunet, S., Aubert, D., Pichon, C., Amara, A., Benabed, K., Colombi, S., Refregier, A., Starck, J.L.: Full-sky weak-lensing simulation with 70 billion particles (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Boylan-Kolchin, M., Springel, V., White, S.D.M., Jenkins, A., Lemson, G.: Resolving cosmic structure formation with the Millennium-II Simulation (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Schneider, A., Teyssier, R., Potter, D., Stadel, J., Onions, J., Reed, D.S., Smith, R.E., Springel, V., Pearce, F.R., Scoccimarro, R.: Matter power spectrum and the challenge of percent accuracy. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2016(4), 047 (2016). doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/...

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    MNRAS 454(2), 1958–1975 (2015)

    Mead, A.J., Peacock, J.A., Heymans, C., Joudaki, S., Heavens, A.F.: An accurate halo model for fitting non-linear cosmological power spectra and baryonic feedback models. MNRAS 454(2), 1958–1975 (2015). doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2036. 1505.07833

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    MNRAS 488(2), 1652–1678 (2019)

    Huang, H.-J., Eifler, T., Mandelbaum, R., Dodelson, S.: Modelling baryonic physics in future weak lensing surveys. MNRAS 488(2), 1652–1678 (2019). doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1714. 1809.01146

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    MNRAS, 1784 (2019)

    Barreira, A., Nelson, D., Pillepich, A., Springel, V., Schmidt, F., Pakmor, R., Hernquist, L., Vogelsberger, M.: Separate Universe Simulations with IllustrisTNG: baryonic effects on power spectrum responses and higher-order statistics. MNRAS, 1784 (2019). doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1...

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Howlett, C., Manera, M., Percival, W.J.: L-PICOLA: A parallel code for fast dark matter simulation (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Computer Vision and Image Understanding 179, 41–65 (2019)

    Borji, A.: Pros and cons of gan evaluation measures. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 179, 41–65 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Grnarova, P., Levy, K.Y., Lucchi, A., Perraudin, N., Goodfellow, I., Hofmann, T., Krause, A.: A domain agnostic measure for monitoring and evaluating gans. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 12069–12079 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    : Cosmology constraints from shear peak statistics in Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data

    Kacprzak, T., Kirk, D., Friedrich, O., Amara, A., Refregier, A., Marian, L., Dietrich, J., Suchyta, E., Aleksi´ c, J., Bacon, D., et al. : Cosmology constraints from shear peak statistics in Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical...

    2016

  42. [50]

    : KiDS-450: cosmological constraints from weak-lensing peak statistics–II: Inference from shear peaks using N-body simulations

    Martinet, N., Schneider, P., Hildebrandt, H., Shan, H., Asgari, M., Dietrich, J.P., Harnois-D´ eraps, J., Erben, T., Grado, A., Heymans, C., et al. : KiDS-450: cosmological constraints from weak-lensing peak statistics–II: Inference from shear peaks using N-body simulations. M...

    2017

  43. [51]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Heusel, M., Ramsauer, H., Unterthiner, T., Nessler, B., Hochreiter, S.: GANs trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local Nash equilibrium. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 6626–6637 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s´ eances de l’acad´ emie des sciences244(6), 689–692 (1957)

    Fr´ echet, M.: Sur la distance de deux lois de probabilit´ e. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des s´ eances de l’acad´ emie des sciences244(6), 689–692 (1957)

    1957

  45. [53]

    Journal of multivariate analysis 12(3), 450–455 (1982)

    Dowson, D., Landau, B.: The Fr´ echet distance between multivariate normal distributions. Journal of multivariate analysis 12(3), 450–455 (1982)

    1982

  46. [54]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Roth, K., Lucchi, A., Nowozin, S., Hofmann, T.: Stabilizing training of generative adversarial networks through regularization. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2018–2028 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Gulrajani, I., Ahmed, F., Arjovsky, M., Dumoulin, V., Courville, A.C.: Improved training of wasserstein GANs. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 5767–5777 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Arjovsky, M., Chintala, S., Bottou, L.: Wasserstein generative adversarial networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 214–223 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Szegedy, C., Liu, W., Jia, Y., Sermanet, P., Reed, S., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Vanhoucke, V., Rabinovich, A.: Going deeper with convolutions (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    In: Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Vondrick, C., Pirsiavash, H., Torralba, A.: Generating videos with scene dynamics. In: Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 613–621 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    In: The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2018)

    Xiong, W., Luo, W., Ma, L., Liu, W., Luo, J.: Learning to generate time-lapse videos using multi-stage dynamic generative adversarial networks. In: The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Saito, M., Matsumoto, E., Saito, S.: Temporal generative adversarial nets with singular value clipping. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2830–2839 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    arXiv e-prints, 1411–1784 (2014)

    Mirza, M., Osindero, S.: Conditional Generative Adversarial Nets. arXiv e-prints, 1411–1784 (2014). 1411.1784

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Dodelson, S.: Modern cosmology (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Miyato, T., Kataoka, T., Koyama, M., Yoshida, Y.: Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networks (2018) Perraudin et al. Page 17 of 17 Operation Parameter size Output Shape Generator Input z N (0,1) - (n,32,32,32,1) Input smooth image - (n,32,32,32,1) Input borders...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.