Anomaly detection with spiking neural networks for LHC physics

Aqib Javed; Barry M. Dillon; Jim Harkin

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 91 references

Anomaly detection with spiking neural networks for LHC physics

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 SNN autoencoders match conventional ones at LHC anomaly detection

desk verdict The review package contains the wrong full text, so the SNN-vs-autoencoder claim cannot be checked; on the abstract alone it is a plausible, useful applied claim that deserves a real look once the correct manuscript is supplied. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00063 v1 pith:F4QWUMHE submitted 2025-07-31 hep-ph cs.NEhep-ex

Barry M. Dillon , Jim Harkin , Aqib Javed This is my paper

classification hep-phcs.NEhep-ex

keywords spikingneuralnetworksanomalydetectionLHCphysicsautoencodertriggersystemCMSADC2021neuromorphiccomputingFPGA

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

The paper asks whether spiking neural network (SNN) autoencoders can perform anomaly detection at the Large Hadron Collider as well as conventional autoencoders, with the goal of deploying them at the trigger level where latency and memory are strictly limited. Using the CMS ADC2021 dataset and a simple SNN autoencoder architecture, the authors report that the SNN autoencoders are competitive with conventional autoencoders across all signal models studied. If correct, this would give experimental physicists a low-latency, low-power way to flag novel events in real time before they are discarded by standard selection cuts.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spiking neural network autoencoder: an autoencoder built from spiking neurons that learns to reconstruct input features, with the reconstruction error used as the anomaly score. It is compared against a conventional autoencoder on the CMS ADC2021 dataset, which supplies benchmark signal and background samples across several physics signal models. The comparison on that dataset is what carries the claim of competitiveness.

What would settle it

A head-to-head comparison on the CMS ADC2021 signal models in which a conventional autoencoder outperforms the SNN autoencoder by an amount larger than the reported statistical uncertainty would refute the competitiveness claim; alternatively, a measurement showing the SNN autoencoder cannot meet trigger latency or power budgets would refute its practical relevance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a simple spiking neural network autoencoder, evaluated on the CMS ADC2021 dataset, achieves anomaly detection performance competitive with a conventional autoencoder for every signal model tested. The paper frames this as a practical step toward trigger-level anomaly detection, since SNNs are inherently suitable for low-latency, low-memory inference on FPGAs and the authors anticipate further gains from dedicated neuromorphic hardware. The performance parity is presented as a new application of neuromorphic computing to collider physics rather than a new algorithmic principle.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that SNN autoencoders are competitive rests on the assumption that evaluation on the CMS ADC2021 dataset with the chosen architecture is representative of real trigger-level conditions, including latency, power, and signal-to-background characteristics that the paper does not measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

SNN autoencoders could be deployed in the LHC trigger system, flagging anomalous events in real time at lower latency and lower power than conventional autoencoders.
Their small memory footprint and compatibility with FPGA implementation would allow anomaly detection to run where standard algorithms cannot fit.
The demonstrated parity suggests that the discretization inherent to spiking neurons does not destroy the reconstruction-based anomaly signal, so other reconstruction-based methods may transfer to SNNs as well.
Trigger systems could retain unusual events for offline analysis, increasing the chance of discovering new physics that conventional selection cuts would discard.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper reports performance parity but does not report latency, power, or resource usage; a direct measurement of these on FPGA hardware at trigger rates would test whether the practical motivation is satisfied.
Because the architecture is deliberately simple, more sophisticated SNN training or coding schemes may push performance beyond parity, a possibility the paper leaves implicit.
The same SNN autoencoder approach could be extended to other LHC anomaly detection tasks, such as online jet tagging or monitoring, provided the trigger-level constraints are met.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—quick take on arXiv:2508.00063. The full text in the review package is the wrong paper: arXiv:2508.00066v2, a JCAP cosmology article on redshift-space peculiar velocities by Chen, Howlett, Lai, and Qin. It has no LHC, no SNNs, no anomaly detection. So the only evaluable material is the abstract. Verdict: unverdictable from what I was given.

What the abstract promises is a concrete applied result: SNN autoencoders trained and evaluated on the CMS ADC2021 dataset, competitive with conventional autoencoders across all signal models, with an eye to trigger-level low-latency/low-power operation. That is a sensible and useful claim if supported. The application of neuromorphic SNNs to LHC anomaly detection is genuinely new relative to the standard AE anomaly-detection literature; the abstract is suitably modest, and it names a public dataset and a clear baseline class.

The soft spot is that I cannot check any of it. No architecture, no training procedure, no hyperparameters, no baseline details, no error bars, no AUC or signal-efficiency numbers, no latency/power/resource measurements. The phrase "across all signal models" is a strong universal; without per-signal numbers and a defined comparison protocol it is just an assertion. I also cannot assess the citation pattern or related-work positioning because the supplied text is irrelevant. This is not a judgment that the paper is wrong. It may be perfectly solid. But right now the load-bearing comparison is invisible.

Who is this for? HEP experimentalists and trigger designers, plus neuromorphic computing people. If the full text actually reports the standard details, it deserves a serious referee: the dataset is public, the comparison is concrete, and the hardware motivation is real. I would send it out with a request for the correct manuscript and for clarity on the evaluation protocol—per-signal metrics, error bars, and whether the SNN was run on FPGA/neuromorphic hardware or just simulated. If the real submission is just the abstract plus vague claims, desk reject.

My recommendation: get the right full text before anything else. The mismatch should not count against the authors; it should count as a processing failure. On the abstract alone, I would not cite this, and I would not bring it to reading group. But judging the science is impossible until I see the actual paper.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The submission is arXiv:2508.00063 (hep-ph), whose abstract claims that spiking neural network autoencoders (SNN-AEs) are competitive with conventional autoencoders for LHC anomaly detection on the CMS ADC2021 dataset, with potential trigger-level application under strict latency and resource constraints. The full text supplied for review, however, is arXiv:2508.00066v2, an astro-ph.CO paper on effective field theories of redshift-space galaxy peculiar velocities. The supplied text contains no description of the SNN architecture, training procedure, baseline autoencoder, comparison metric, or any LHC-related content. Consequently, the central claim cannot be verified from the provided materials.

Significance. If the claimed competitiveness were fully demonstrated, the paper would be of practical interest for real-time anomaly detection at the LHC trigger level, where SNNs on FPGAs could provide low-latency, low-power alternatives to conventional autoencoders. The use of the public CMS ADC2021 dataset is a strength in principle, as it enables reproducible comparison. However, none of the supporting evidence is present in the supplied full text: there is no architecture, no training protocol, no baseline definition, no error bars, and no latency/power/resource measurements. The paper's potential significance cannot be assessed from the provided materials, and the supplied text contains no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code for the claimed ML results.

major comments (4)

[Full text supplied (arXiv:2508.00066v2)] The manuscript provided for review is not the paper described in the abstract of arXiv:2508.00063. It is arXiv:2508.00066v2, an astro-ph.CO paper on effective field theories of redshift-space galaxy peculiar velocities. The supplied text contains no spiking neural network, no autoencoder, no LHC trigger discussion, and no use of the CMS ADC2021 dataset; consequently, the central claim that 'SNN AutoEncoders are competitive with conventional AutoEncoders for LHC anomaly detection across all signal models' has no checkable support in the evidence provided.
[Abstract] The abstract reports competitiveness 'across all signal models' but gives no metric, no baseline specification, no number of signal models, and no statistical uncertainties. Since the supporting full text is absent, the claim cannot be assessed even at face value; a minimally complete empirical claim should define the comparison protocol (identical architecture capacity and training budget), the evaluation metric (e.g., AUC or significance improvement), and the run-to-run variability.
[Full text supplied (arXiv:2508.00066v2), §6] The only empirical section in the supplied text compares analytic EFT models to N-body simulations for galaxy peculiar velocities; it does not evaluate any anomaly detector. The paper's own motivation—low-latency, low-memory trigger-level inference—is therefore unsupported by any measurements of latency, power, or resource usage in the provided materials.
[Full text supplied (arXiv:2508.00066v2), §1] The introduction frames the paper entirely in terms of cosmology and large-scale structure; nothing in it prepares the LHC anomaly-detection context claimed in the abstract. This internal mismatch makes it impossible to judge whether the architecture and training choices described (nowhere) would meet the stated constraints.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The capitalization of 'AutoEncoders' is inconsistent; use a single spelling (e.g., 'autoencoders') throughout.
[Abstract] The phrase 'across all signal models' is vague; the paper should enumerate the signal models from the CMS ADC2021 dataset and report per-signal results.
[Abstract] The abstract states 'strict latency and computational constraints' without numerical targets; specifying the intended trigger stage and its latency/power budget would make the engineering claim concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be identified: the supplied full text is a different paper, so the SNN claim has no derivation chain to audit.

full rationale

The abstract to be reviewed claims that SNN AutoEncoders are competitive with conventional AutoEncoders on the CMS ADC2021 dataset, but the supplied full text is arXiv:2508.00066v2, an astro-ph.CO paper titled 'Effective Theories of Redshift-Space Galaxy Peculiar Velocities' by different authors. That text contains no SNN architecture, no autoencoder training, no CMS ADC2021 analysis, and no comparison protocol for the conventional autoencoder baseline. Because the central claim's derivation is absent from the provided materials, I cannot quote an equation or parameter that reduces the prediction to its own inputs; no circular step can be exhibited under the requirement that circularity be shown by specific quoted reduction. This is a provenance and verifiability problem, not a demonstrated circularity. The supplied astro-ph text itself compares analytic EFT predictions against independent N-body simulations (AbacusSummit) and fits free EFT parameters to those simulations; that benchmark structure does not, on its face, make the central growth-rate recovery claim equivalent to its inputs by construction. The score of 0 therefore means that no circularity was found in the assessable material, not that the SNN competitiveness claim was verified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Since the available text is only the abstract and the full text is a different paper, the ledger can only list assumptions stated or implied by the abstract. No free parameters or invented entities are identifiable.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The CMS ADC2021 dataset is representative of LHC conditions for trigger-level anomaly detection.
The abstract uses this dataset to support the general claim of competitiveness, but provides no evidence that it captures trigger latency, background composition, or hardware constraints.
domain assumption SNN inference can meet trigger latency and power constraints on FPGAs or neuromorphic hardware.
The motivation for SNNs in the abstract is low-latency, low-memory real-time inference, but no measurements of latency or power are reported in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomaly detection with spiking neural networks for LHC physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4QWUMHE

@misc{pith2026250800063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomaly detection with spiking neural networks for LHC physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4QWUMHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00063}
}

read the original abstract

Anomaly detection offers a promising strategy for discovering new physics at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This paper investigates AutoEncoders built using neuromorphic Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) for this purpose. One key application is at the trigger level, where anomaly detection tools could capture signals that would otherwise be discarded by conventional selection cuts. These systems must operate under strict latency and computational constraints. SNNs are inherently well-suited for low-latency, low-memory, real-time inference, particularly on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). Further gains are expected with the rapid progress in dedicated neuromorphic hardware development. Using the CMS ADC2021 dataset, we design and evaluate a simple SNN AutoEncoder architecture. Our results show that the SNN AutoEncoders are competitive with conventional AutoEncoders for LHC anomaly detection across all signal models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

DESI Collaboration,DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.12022 [2411.12022]

arXiv 2024
[2]

Besuner, A

R. Besuner, A. Dey, A. Drlica-Wagner, H. Ebina, G. Fernandez Moroni, S. Ferraro et al.,The Spectroscopic Stage-5 Experiment,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2503.07923 [2503.07923]

arXiv 2025
[3]

Djorgovski and M

S. Djorgovski and M. Davis,Fundamental properties of elliptical galaxies, ApJ313(1987) 59

1987
[4]

Dressler, D

A. Dressler, D. Lynden-Bell, D. Burstein, R.L. Davies, S.M. Faber, R. Terlevich et al., Spectroscopy and photometry of elliptical galaxies. I - A new distance estimator, ApJ313 (1987) 42

1987
[5]

Tully and J.R

R.B. Tully and J.R. Fisher,A new method of determining distances to galaxies, A&A54(1977) 661

1977
[6]

Phillips,The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae, ApJ413(1993) L105

M.M. Phillips,The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae, ApJ413(1993) L105

1993
[7]

Howlett,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum - I

C. Howlett,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum - I. Optimal estimation from peculiar velocity surveys, MNRAS487(2019) 5209 [1906.02875]

arXiv 2019
[8]

Giani, C

L. Giani, C. Howlett, R. Ruggeri, F. Bianchini, K. Said and T.M. Davis,Cross-correlating radial peculiar velocities and CMB lensing convergence, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023 (2023) 002 [2301.08381]

arXiv 2023

Show all 91 references

[9]

Burkey and A.N

D. Burkey and A.N. Taylor,Prospects for galaxy-mass relations from the 6dF Galaxy Survey, MNRAS347(2004) 255 [astro-ph/0310912]. – 33 – � �� ...

2004 arXiv
[10]

J. Koda, C. Blake, T. Davis, C. Magoulas, C.M. Springob, M. Scrimgeour et al.,Are peculiar velocity surveys competitive as a cosmological probe?, MNRAS445(2014) 4267 [1312.1022]

2014 arXiv
[11]

Howlett, L

C. Howlett, L. Staveley-Smith and C. Blake,Cosmological forecasts for combined and next-generation peculiar velocity surveys, MNRAS464(2017) 2517 [1609.08247]

2017 arXiv
[12]

McDonald and U

P. McDonald and U. Seljak,How to evade the sample variance limit on measurements of redshift-space distortions,Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics2009(2009) 007 [0810.0323]

2009 arXiv
[13]

Springob, C

C.M. Springob, C. Magoulas, M. Colless, J. Mould, P. Erdo˘ gdu, D.H. Jones et al.,The 6dF Galaxy Survey: peculiar velocity field and cosmography, MNRAS445(2014) 2677 [1409.6161]

2014 arXiv
[14]

Tully, H.M

R.B. Tully, H.M. Courtois and J.G. Sorce,Cosmicflows-3, AJ152(2016) 50 [1605.01765]

2016 arXiv
[15]

T. Hong, L. Staveley-Smith, K.L. Masters, C.M. Springob, L.M. Macri, B.S. Koribalski et al., 2MTF - VII. 2MASS Tully-Fisher survey final data release: distances for 2062 nearby spiral galaxies, MNRAS487(2019) 2061 [1905.08530]. – 34 –

2019 arXiv
[16]

F. Qin, D. Parkinson, C. Howlett and K. Said,Cosmic Flow Measurement and Mock Sampling Algorithm of Cosmicflows-4 Tully-Fisher Catalog, ApJ922(2021) 59 [2109.14808]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Howlett, K

C. Howlett, K. Said, J.R. Lucey, M. Colless, F. Qin, Y. Lai et al.,The Sloan Digital Sky Survey peculiar velocity catalogue, MNRAS515(2022) 953 [2201.03112]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Tully, E

R.B. Tully, E. Kourkchi, H.M. Courtois, G.S. Anand, J.P. Blakeslee, D. Brout et al., Cosmicflows-4, ApJ944(2023) 94 [2209.11238]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Johnson, C

A. Johnson, C. Blake, J. Koda, Y.-Z. Ma, M. Colless, M. Crocce et al.,The 6dF Galaxy Survey: cosmological constraints from the velocity power spectrum, MNRAS444(2014) 3926 [1404.3799]

2014 arXiv
[20]

Howlett, L

C. Howlett, L. Staveley-Smith, P.J. Elahi, T. Hong, T.H. Jarrett, D.H. Jones et al.,2MTF - VI. Measuring the velocity power spectrum, MNRAS471(2017) 3135 [1706.05130]

2017 arXiv
[21]

Adams and C

C. Adams and C. Blake,Improving constraints on the growth rate of structure by modelling the density-velocity cross-correlation in the 6dF Galaxy Survey, MNRAS471(2017) 839

2017
[22]

F. Qin, C. Howlett and L. Staveley-Smith,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum - II. Measuring the growth rate from the combined 2MTF and 6dFGSv surveys, MNRAS487(2019) 5235 [1906.02874]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Adams and C

C. Adams and C. Blake,Joint growth-rate measurements from redshift-space distortions and peculiar velocities in the 6dF Galaxy Survey, MNRAS494(2020) 3275 [2004.06399]

2020 arXiv
[24]

Y. Lai, C. Howlett and T.M. Davis,Using peculiar velocity surveys to constrain the growth rate of structure with the wide-angle effect, MNRAS518(2023) 1840 [2209.04166]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Turner, C

R.J. Turner, C. Blake and R. Ruggeri,A local measurement of the growth rate from peculiar velocities and galaxy clustering correlations in the 6dF Galaxy Survey, MNRAS518(2023) 2436 [2207.03707]

2023 arXiv
[26]

F. Qin, D. Parkinson, S.E. Hong and C.G. Sabiu,Reconstructing the cosmological density and velocity fields from redshifted galaxy distributions using V-net, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023(2023) 062 [2302.02087]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Lyall, C

S. Lyall, C. Blake and R.J. Turner,Constraining modified gravity scenarios with the 6dFGS and SDSS galaxy peculiar velocity data sets, MNRAS532(2024) 3972 [2407.18684]

2024 arXiv
[28]

F. Qin, C. Howlett and D. Parkinson,The Redshift-space Momentum Power Spectrum. III. Measuring the Growth Rate from the SDSSv Survey Using the Auto- and Cross-power Spectrum of the Galaxy Density and Momentum Fields, ApJ978(2025) 7 [2411.09571]

2025 arXiv
[29]

Saulder, C

C. Saulder, C. Howlett, K.A. Douglass, K. Said, S. BenZvi, S. Ahlen et al.,Target selection for the DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey, MNRAS525(2023) 1106 [2302.13760]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Taylor, M

E.N. Taylor, M. Cluver, E. Bell, J. Brinchmann, M. Colless, H. Courtois et al.,The 4MOST Hemisphere Survey of the Nearby Universe (4HS),The Messenger190(2023) 46

2023
[31]

Carreres, J.E

B. Carreres, J.E. Bautista, F. Feinstein, D. Fouchez, B. Racine, M. Smith et al.,Growth-rate measurement with type-Ia supernovae using ZTF survey simulations, A&A674(2023) A197 [2303.01198]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Koribalski, L

B.S. Koribalski, L. Staveley-Smith, T. Westmeier, P. Serra, K. Spekkens, O.I. Wong et al., WALLABY – an SKA Pathfinder H I survey, Ap&SS365(2020) 118 [2002.07311]

2020 arXiv
[33]

Howlett, A.S.G

C. Howlett, A.S.G. Robotham, C.D.P. Lagos and A.G. Kim,Measuring the Growth Rate of Structure with Type IA Supernovae from LSST, ApJ847(2017) 128 [1708.08236]

2017 arXiv
[34]

Rosselli, B

D. Rosselli, B. Carreres, C. Ravoux, J.E. Bautista, D. Fouchez, A.G. Kim et al.,Forecast for growth-rate measurement using peculiar velocities from LSST supernovae,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2507.00157 [2507.00157]. – 35 –

2025 arXiv
[35]

Ivanov, M

M.M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga,Cosmological parameters from the BOSS galaxy power spectrum, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2020(2020) 042 [1909.05277]

2020 arXiv
[36]

d’Amico, J

G. d’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, K. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang et al.,The cosmological analysis of the SDSS/BOSS data from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2020(2020) 005 [1909.05271]

2020 arXiv
[37]

S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah and M. White,A new analysis of galaxy 2-point functions in the BOSS survey, including full-shape information and post-reconstruction BAO, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022(2022) 008 [2110.05530]

2022 arXiv
[38]

McDonald and A

P. McDonald and A. Roy,Clustering of dark matter tracers: generalizing bias for the coming era of precision LSS, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2009(2009) 020 [0902.0991]

2009 arXiv
[39]

Carrasco, M.P

J.J.M. Carrasco, M.P. Hertzberg and L. Senatore,The effective field theory of cosmological large scale structures,Journal of High Energy Physics2012(2012) 82 [1206.2926]

2012 arXiv
[40]

Porto, L

R.A. Porto, L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,The Lagrangian-space Effective Field Theory of large scale structures, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2014(2014) 022 [1311.2168]

2014 arXiv
[41]

Z. Vlah, M. White and A. Aviles,A Lagrangian effective field theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2015(2015) 014 [1506.05264]

2015 arXiv
[42]

Perko, L

A. Perko, L. Senatore, E. Jennings and R.H. Wechsler,Biased Tracers in Redshift Space in the EFT of Large-Scale Structure,arXiv e-prints(2016) arXiv:1610.09321 [1610.09321]

2016 arXiv
[43]

Desjacques, D

V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-scale galaxy bias, Phys. Rep.733(2018) 1 [1611.09787]

2018 arXiv
[44]

S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah and M. White,Consistent modeling of velocity statistics and redshift-space distortions in one-loop perturbation theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2020(2020) 062 [2005.00523]

2020 arXiv
[45]

Nishimichi, G

T. Nishimichi, G. D’Amico, M.M. Ivanov, L. Senatore, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Takada et al.,Blinded challenge for precision cosmology with large-scale structure: Results from effective field theory for the redshift-space galaxy power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 123541 [2003.08277]

2020 arXiv
[46]

Ivanov, O.H.E

M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, G. Cabass, T. Nishimichi, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga, Cosmology with the galaxy bispectrum multipoles: Optimal estimation and application to BOSS data, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 083515 [2302.04414]

2023 arXiv
[47]

D’Amico, Y

G. D’Amico, Y. Donath, M. Lewandowski, L. Senatore and P. Zhang,The BOSS bispectrum analysis at one loop from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024(2024) 059 [2206.08327]

2024 arXiv
[48]

M. Maus, Y. Lai, H.E. Noriega, S. Ramirez-Solano, A. Aviles, S. Chen et al.,A comparison of effective field theory models of redshift space galaxy power spectra for DESI 2024 and future surveys, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 134 [2404.07272]

2025 arXiv
[49]

Okumura, U

T. Okumura, U. Seljak, Z. Vlah and V. Desjacques,Peculiar velocities in redshift space: formalism, N-body simulations and perturbation theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2014 (2014) 003 [1312.4214]

2014 arXiv
[50]

Sugiyama, T

N.S. Sugiyama, T. Okumura and D.N. Spergel,Understanding redshift space distortions in density-weighted peculiar velocity, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2016(2016) 001 [1509.08232]

2016 arXiv
[51]

L. Dam, K. Bolejko and G.F. Lewis,Exploring the redshift-space peculiar velocity field and its power spectrum, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 018 [2105.12933]

2021 arXiv
[52]

Baldauf, M

T. Baldauf, M. Mirbabayi, M. Simonovi´ c and M. Zaldarriaga,Equivalence principle and the baryon acoustic peak, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 043514 [1504.04366]. – 36 –

2015 arXiv
[53]

Senatore and M

L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga,The IR-resummed Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structures, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2015(2015) 013 [1404.5954]

2015 arXiv
[54]

Z. Vlah, U. Seljak, M. Yat Chu and Y. Feng,Perturbation theory, effective field theory, and oscillations in the power spectrum, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2016(2016) 057 [1509.02120]

2016 arXiv
[55]

D. Blas, M. Garny, M.M. Ivanov and S. Sibiryakov,Time-sliced perturbation theory II: baryon acoustic oscillations and infrared resummation, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2016(2016) 028 [1605.02149]

2016 arXiv
[56]

S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah and M. White,The bispectrum in Lagrangian perturbation theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024(2024) 012 [2406.00103]

2024 arXiv
[57]

Scoccimarro,Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities, and nonlinearities, Phys

R. Scoccimarro,Redshift-space distortions, pairwise velocities, and nonlinearities, Phys. Rev. D 70(2004) 083007 [astro-ph/0407214]

2004 arXiv
[58]

Vlah and M

Z. Vlah and M. White,Exploring redshift-space distortions in large-scale structure, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2019(2019) 007 [1812.02775]

2019 arXiv
[59]

Castorina and M

E. Castorina and M. White,Wide-angle effects for peculiar velocities, MNRAS499(2020) 893 [1911.08353]

2020 arXiv
[60]

Pantiri, M

M. Pantiri, M. Foglieni, E.D. Dio and E. Castorina,The power spectrum of luminosity distance fluctuations in General Relativity, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024(2024) 021 [2407.01486]

2024 arXiv
[61]

Gorski, M

K.M. Gorski, M. Davis, M.A. Strauss, S.D.M. White and A. Yahil,Cosmological Velocity Correlations: Observations and Model Predictions, ApJ344(1989) 1

1989
[62]

Groth, R

E.J. Groth, R. Juszkiewicz and J.P. Ostriker,An Estimate of the Velocity Correlation Tensor: Cosmological Implications, ApJ346(1989) 558

1989
[63]

Park,Cosmic momentum field and mass fluctuation power spectrum, MNRAS319(2000) 573 [astro-ph/0012066]

C. Park,Cosmic momentum field and mass fluctuation power spectrum, MNRAS319(2000) 573 [astro-ph/0012066]

2000 arXiv
[64]

Ferreira, R

P.G. Ferreira, R. Juszkiewicz, H.A. Feldman, M. Davis and A.H. Jaffe,Streaming Velocities as a Dynamical Estimator ofΩ, ApJ515(1999) L1 [astro-ph/9812456]

1999 arXiv
[65]

Juszkiewicz and A

R. Juszkiewicz and A. Yahil,Galaxy Clustering and the Origin of Large-Scale Flows, ApJ346 (1989) L49

1989
[66]

Seljak and P

U. Seljak and P. McDonald,Distribution function approach to redshift space distortions, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.11(2011) 039 [1109.1888]

2011 arXiv
[67]

Matsubara,Resumming cosmological perturbations via the Lagrangian picture: One-loop results in real space and in redshift space, Phys

T. Matsubara,Resumming cosmological perturbations via the Lagrangian picture: One-loop results in real space and in redshift space, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 063530 [0711.2521]

2008 arXiv
[68]

Carlson, B

J. Carlson, B. Reid and M. White,Convolution Lagrangian perturbation theory for biased tracers, MNRAS429(2013) 1674 [1209.0780]

2013 arXiv
[69]

Z. Vlah, U. Seljak and T. Baldauf,Lagrangian perturbation theory at one loop order: Successes, failures, and improvements, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 023508 [1410.1617]

2015 arXiv
[70]

Matsubara,Nonlinear perturbation theory with halo bias and redshift-space distortions via the Lagrangian picture, Phys

T. Matsubara,Nonlinear perturbation theory with halo bias and redshift-space distortions via the Lagrangian picture, Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 083519 [0807.1733]

2008 arXiv
[71]

Z. Vlah, E. Castorina and M. White,The Gaussian streaming model and convolution Lagrangian effective field theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2016(2016) 007 [1609.02908]

2016 arXiv
[72]

S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah and M. White,The reconstructed power spectrum in the Zeldovich approximation, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2019(2019) 017 [1907.00043]

2019 arXiv
[73]

S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, E. Castorina and M. White,Redshift-space distortions in Lagrangian perturbation theory, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 100 [2012.04636]. – 37 –

2021 arXiv
[74]

Chudaykin, M.M

A. Chudaykin, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox and M. Simonovi´ c,Nonlinear perturbation theory extension of the Boltzmann code CLASS, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 063533 [2004.10607]

2020 arXiv
[75]

D’Amico, L

G. D’Amico, L. Senatore and P. Zhang,Limits on wCDM from the EFTofLSS with the PyBird code, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021(2021) 006 [2003.07956]

2021 arXiv
[76]

Fujita, V

T. Fujita, V. Mauerhofer, L. Senatore, Z. Vlah and R. Angulo,Very massive tracers and higher derivative biases, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2020(2020) 009 [1609.00717]

2020 arXiv
[77]

Ebina and M

H. Ebina and M. White,Cosmology before noon with multiple galaxy populations,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2401.13166 [2401.13166]

2024 arXiv
[78]

M. Maus, S. Chen, M. White, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, A. Aviles et al.,An analysis of parameter compression and Full-Modeling techniques with Velocileptors for DESI 2024 and beyond, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2025(2025) 138 [2404.07312]

2025 arXiv
[79]

Ivanov and S

M.M. Ivanov and S. Sibiryakov,Infrared resummation for biased tracers in redshift space, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2018(2018) 053 [1804.05080]

2018 arXiv
[80]

DeRose, S.-F

J. DeRose, S.-F. Chen, N. Kokron and M. White,Precision redshift-space galaxy power spectra using Zel’dovich control variates, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023(2023) 008 [2210.14239]

2023 arXiv
[81]

Garrison, D.J

L.H. Garrison, D.J. Eisenstein, D. Ferrer, N.A. Maksimova and P.A. Pinto,The abacus cosmological N-body code,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508(2021) 575 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/508/1/575/40458823/stab2482.pdf]

2021
[82]

Maksimova, L.H

N.A. Maksimova, L.H. Garrison, D.J. Eisenstein, B. Hadzhiyska, S. Bose and T.P. Satterthwaite,AbacusSummit: a massive set of high-accuracy, high-resolution N-body simulations,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508(2021) 4017 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/articl...

2021
[83]

Hadzhiyska, D

B. Hadzhiyska, D. Eisenstein, S. Bose, L.H. Garrison and N. Maksimova,COMPASO: A new halo finder for competitive assignment to spherical overdensities, MNRAS509(2022) 501 [2110.11408]

2022 arXiv
[84]

Aghanim, Y

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, A&A641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

2020 arXiv
[85]

N. Hand, Y. Feng, F. Beutler, Y. Li, C. Modi, U. Seljak et al.,nbodykit: An Open-source, Massively Parallel Toolkit for Large-scale Structure, AJ156(2018) 160 [1712.05834]

2018 arXiv
[86]

Sugiyama, T

N.S. Sugiyama, T. Okumura and D.N. Spergel,Will kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich measurements enhance the science return from galaxy redshift surveys?, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2017(2017) 057 [1606.06367]

2017 arXiv
[87]

Ravoux, B

C. Ravoux, B. Carreres, D. Rosselli, J. Bautista, A. Carr, T. Dumerchat et al.,Generalized framework for likelihood-based field-level inference of growth rate from velocity and density fields, A&A698(2025) A273 [2501.16852]

2025
[88]

Smith, M.S

K.M. Smith, M.S. Madhavacheril, M. M¨ unchmeyer, S. Ferraro, U. Giri and M.C. Johnson,KSZ tomography and the bispectrum,arXiv e-prints(2018) arXiv:1810.13423 [1810.13423]

2018 arXiv
[89]

Hamilton,Uncorrelated modes of the non-linear power spectrum, MNRAS312(2000) 257 [astro-ph/9905191]

A.J.S. Hamilton,Uncorrelated modes of the non-linear power spectrum, MNRAS312(2000) 257 [astro-ph/9905191]

2000 arXiv
[90]

Torrado and A

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

2021 arXiv
[91]

Taylor and T.D

A.N. Taylor and T.D. Kitching,Analytic methods for cosmological likelihoods, MNRAS408 (2010) 865 [1003.1136]. – 38 –

2010 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

DESI Collaboration,DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2411.12022 [2411.12022]

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Besuner, A

R. Besuner, A. Dey, A. Drlica-Wagner, H. Ebina, G. Fernandez Moroni, S. Ferraro et al.,The Spectroscopic Stage-5 Experiment,arXiv e-prints(2025) arXiv:2503.07923 [2503.07923]

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Djorgovski and M

S. Djorgovski and M. Davis,Fundamental properties of elliptical galaxies, ApJ313(1987) 59

1987

[4] [4]

Dressler, D

A. Dressler, D. Lynden-Bell, D. Burstein, R.L. Davies, S.M. Faber, R. Terlevich et al., Spectroscopy and photometry of elliptical galaxies. I - A new distance estimator, ApJ313 (1987) 42

1987

[5] [5]

Tully and J.R

R.B. Tully and J.R. Fisher,A new method of determining distances to galaxies, A&A54(1977) 661

1977

[6] [6]

Phillips,The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae, ApJ413(1993) L105

M.M. Phillips,The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae, ApJ413(1993) L105

1993

[7] [7]

Howlett,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum - I

C. Howlett,The redshift-space momentum power spectrum - I. Optimal estimation from peculiar velocity surveys, MNRAS487(2019) 5209 [1906.02875]

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Giani, C

L. Giani, C. Howlett, R. Ruggeri, F. Bianchini, K. Said and T.M. Davis,Cross-correlating radial peculiar velocities and CMB lensing convergence, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2023 (2023) 002 [2301.08381]

arXiv 2023