Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probing primordial non-Gaussianity by reconstructing the initial conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the cross-power between the squared primordial potential and the reconstructed density field carries the same $f_{\rm NL}$ information as the full matter bispectrum and, after hybrid reconstruction, improves…

desk verdict Solid proof-of-concept for using the <Phi^2 delta> cross-power on reconstructed fields to improve fNL constraints; the advertised factor-of-three holds in the idealized setup, but the CNN's distortion of the PNG signal remains an uncalibrated systematic. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00968 v2 pith:FYAHYXZR submitted 2024-12-01 astro-ph.CO

Xinyi Chen , Nikhil Padmanabhan , Daniel J. Eisenstein This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords primordialnon-Gaussianitylocal-typePNGfNLdensityfieldreconstructionconvolutionalneuralnetworkcross-powerspectrumbispectrumlarge-scalestructure
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 proposes constraining local-type primordial non-Gaussianity, parametrized by $f_{\rm NL}$, by first removing late-time gravitational evolution from the observed density field and then cross-correlating the squared primordial potential, $\Phi^2$, with the reconstructed density, $\delta$. It argues that this cross-power estimator, $\langle\Phi^2\delta\rangle$, contains the same $f_{\rm NL}$ information as the full matter bispectrum while needing a data vector that scales only with the number of $k$-bins. Applied to hybrid reconstruction on matched simulations, the estimator improves the single-parameter $f_{\rm NL}$ forecast by a factor of 1.5 at $k_{\max}=0.1\ h/{\rm Mpc}$ and a factor of 3 at $k_{\max}=0.2\ h/{\rm Mpc}$ at $z=1$ over the unreconstructed field. The paper presents this as a proof of concept that does not yet include galaxy bias, redshift-space distortions, or survey realism, and it openly leaves calibration of residual biases to future work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cross-power estimator $P_{\Phi^2\delta}(k)$, defined by $\langle\Phi^2(\mathbf{k})\delta(\mathbf{k}')\rangle=(2\pi)^3\delta_D(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{k}')P_{\Phi^2\delta}(k)$. Its power comes from the identity that squaring the potential in configuration space is a convolution in Fourier space, which collapses the $f_{\rm NL}$ bispectrum template into a three-point cross-correlation that is near-optimal for the squeezed limit. The second component is hybrid reconstruction: an iterative 2LPT-based algorithm preprocessing the density field, followed by a convolutional neural network trained on $f_{\rm NL}=0$ simulations, which removes the growth, shift, and tidal quadratic terms. A cosine smoothing filter band-limits the $\Phi^2$ field so that the estimator is not dominated by small-scale modes where reconstruction degrades.

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline on simulations with $f_{\rm NL}=\pm 50$ and $\pm 200$ (not used in training or calibration) and check whether, after subtracting the $f_{\rm NL}=0$ additive shift, the recovered $f_{\rm NL}$ is linear in the input with unit slope within the quoted errors; a residual multiplicative offset or a seed-dependent shift at these intermediate amplitudes would falsify the claim that the factor-of-three forecast translates into an unbiased $f_{\rm NL}$ measurement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the near-optimal bispectrum estimator for local $f_{\rm NL}$, derived from the product-separable template of the primordial bispectrum, reduces to a cross-power spectrum $P_{\Phi^2\delta}(k)$ between the squared primordial potential and the linear density field. When the same $k$-modes are available, this compressed statistic returns the same Fisher error on $f_{\rm NL}$ as the full matter bispectrum. The new step is to feed this estimator with density fields that have been reconstructed to remove gravitational nonlinearities: the hybrid reconstruction reduces the second-order gravitational terms nearly to zero and extends the usable $k$-range, dropping the single-parameter forecast $\sigma(f_{\rm NL})$ from about 54.5 (pre-reconstruction) to 17.4 at $z=1$ with $k_{\max}=0.2\ h/{\rm Mpc}$, a factor of three. The paper also documents an additive bias at $f_{\rm NL}=0$ and a residual multiplicative shift at $f_{\rm NL}=\pm 100$, and it explicitly identifies calibration of these biases as necessary follow-up work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the neural-network reconstruction, trained only on $f_{\rm NL}=0$ simulations, preserves the primordial non-Gaussian signal when applied to $f_{\rm NL}\neq 0$ fields, which the paper's own template fits show is only approximately true (a residual multiplicative shift of roughly $\pm 10$ remains after subtracting the additive bias).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the estimator is as informative as the full bispectrum, $f_{\rm NL}$ constraints can be obtained with a data vector of length $O(k_{\max})$ instead of $O(k_{\max}^3)$, making PNG analyses far cheaper computationally.
  • At $z=1$ with $k_{\max}=0.2\ h/{\rm Mpc}$, reconstruction yields a factor-of-three improvement in unmarginalized single-parameter $\sigma(f_{\rm NL})$ over the unreconstructed matter field, and a factor of 1.5 at $k_{\max}=0.1\ h/{\rm Mpc}$.
  • Because hybrid reconstruction removes the second-order gravitational terms, a simple perturbative model of the reconstructed field describes the measured cross-power, so the method does not depend on a simulation-based likelihood.
  • Reconstruction extends the range of scales usable for $f_{\rm NL}$, shifting strategy away from relying only on the lowest $k$ modes that dominate the scale-dependent bias.
  • The same product-separable cross-power construction applies to equilateral and orthogonal PNG shapes, and reconstruction may help even more for the equilateral shape, whose signal is most contaminated by gravitational nonlinearities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's explicit claims, if the residual multiplicative bias proves calibratable with a small set of $f_{\rm NL}$-scaling simulations, the method could be adapted to galaxy samples with lower number densities, where reconstruction fidelity is lower but the compressed estimator's low dimensionality makes the covariance tractable.
  • The factor-of-three gain assumes matter fields at number density $\sim 10^{-1}\,(h/{\rm Mpc})^3$; at DESI-like galaxy densities the paper itself notes the recoverable scale drops to roughly $k\approx 0.13\ h/{\rm Mpc}$, so an honest end-to-end galaxy forecast would likely show a smaller gain.
  • A natural testable extension is to apply the same reconstruction-plus-cross-power pipeline to the equilateral and orthogonal templates on the corresponding Quijote-PNG simulations, checking whether the factor-of-three gain is preserved or exceeded.
  • The additive $f_{\rm NL}=0$ bias, which changes with redshift and $k_{\max}$, suggests the reconstruction network may be over-Gaussianizing the field; comparing reconstruction residuals between $f_{\rm NL}=0$ and $f_{\rm NL}\neq 0$ simulations could reveal a simple correction.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes estimating local primordial non-Gaussianity by cross-correlating the squared reconstructed primordial potential with the reconstructed density field, ⟨Φ²δ⟩, using a hybrid reconstruction that combines Hada–Eisenstein perturbation-theory reconstruction with a convolutional neural network trained on f_NL = 0 simulations. Section 3 presents a Fisher calculation on linear Gaussian fields aiming to show that this compressed estimator carries the same f_NL information as the full matter bispectrum. Sections 5–6 apply the estimator to Quijote-PNG simulations, reporting that reconstruction reduces the gravity-induced bispectrum and yields a factor of 1.5 (k_max = 0.1 h/Mpc) to 3 (k_max = 0.2 h/Mpc) improvement in a single-parameter, unmarginalized f_NL forecast at z = 1. The paper also develops a perturbation-theory template fit for the reconstructed fields and documents additive and multiplicative biases in the recovered f_NL, which are left for future calibration.

Significance. If the method can be shown to deliver unbiased f_NL constraints, it would provide a computationally inexpensive bispectrum-like statistic and would demonstrate that reconstruction extends the usable k-range for PNG searches. The paper has clear strengths: the estimator derivation and covariance are given in detail, the analysis is carried out on the public Quijote-PNG simulations, the perturbation-theory template fits are carefully documented, and the residual biases are discussed explicitly rather than hidden. However, the central transfer assumption — that a CNN trained on f_NL = 0 simulations preserves the f_NL signal when applied to f_NL ≠ 0 fields — is only partially supported by the paper's own Table 2, which shows roughly 9–10% multiplicative attenuation and a z = 0 additive offset of −11.7. The significance of the factor-of-three forecast is therefore conditional on successful calibration of these distortions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 / Section 6.3.2, Table 2] The central transfer assumption of the method is not yet established. The CNN reconstruction is trained exclusively on f_NL = 0 simulations (Section 5.1) but is then applied to f_NL = ±100 fields. Table 2 shows that after subtracting the f_NL = 0 offset, CNN+HE18 at z = 1 with k_max = 0.2 h/Mpc recovers f_NL = 90.9 and −90.8 for injected +100 and −100, a ~9% multiplicative attenuation; at z = 0 the f_NL = 0 offset is −11.7 and the recovered values are 92.4/−92.0 (k_max = 0.1) and 89.4/−88.9 (k_max = 0.15), while the nonlinear field recovers ±97.7/±98.4. Because the Fisher forecast in Section 5.4 defines its derivative from the f_NL = ±100 reconstructed cross-power, the quoted sigma already includes this attenuation; however, the additive bias at f_NL = 0 and the f_NL dependence of the distortion are not calibrated. As the paper states, calibration with a range of f_NL values is left to future work (Section 6.3.2). Until such a test is performed, the factor-of-three improvement is demonstrated only for a biased summary statistic. I request either a calibration test with intermediate f_NL values (e.g., f_NL = ±10, ±30) or a re-framing of the headline claim as an uncalibrated proof of concept.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Abstract] The abstract states that the cross-power estimator 'has the same information content as the full matter bispectrum,' but the optimality demonstration in Section 3.3 is restricted to a linear Gaussian field with a known potential and a single-parameter Fisher calculation. It does not establish that the estimator applied to the reconstructed (or nonlinear) fields contains the same information as the bispectrum of those fields; nor does it account for the parameter degeneracies discussed in Section 6.3. The comparison with Coulton et al. in Section 5.4 is for the pre-reconstruction nonlinear field and is not a direct equivalence test. I recommend rewording the abstract and conclusion to say that the estimator is near-optimal for the ideal linear field and is competitive with, but not proven equivalent to, bispectrum analyses of the reconstructed fields.
  3. [Section 5.4, Table 1 and Appendix B] The headline improvement factors of 1.5 and 3 are based on a single-parameter, unmarginalized Fisher forecast. The paper acknowledges this, and Appendix B shows that including b_2 inflates σ(f_NL) by ~30% at k_max = 0.1 h/Mpc; Figure 8 shows a strong f_NL–b_2 degeneracy after reconstruction. The abstract's 'up to a factor of three improvement' is thus not a forecast for a marginalized f_NL constraint. Since the factor of three is the paper's central result, this caveat should appear in the abstract, and ideally the single-parameter numbers should be accompanied by an estimate of the marginalized degradation for the same k_max and smoothing choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.4, Table 1] Several entries in Table 1 are left blank (e.g., IC z = 0 with cosine filter at k_max = 0.2 h/Mpc); please add a note explaining why these forecasts are omitted.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.14)] The low-k divergence is regulated by replacing P_Φ with a form proportional to (k + 10⁻⁴)^{n_s−4}; please state explicitly that this is a numerical regulator and show the sensitivity of Figure 1 to the chosen value of 10⁻⁴.
  3. [Section 5.3] The phrase 'at low k, wearers these differences amplify' contains a typo; it should read 'at low k, whereas these differences amplify'.
  4. [Section 6.3.2, Table 2] The parenthetical adjusted f_NL means are quoted without uncertainties; please report the scatter of the adjusted values or explicitly state that they are mean-only values.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The pairs of vertical lines marking the cosine filter boundaries are not described; please explain in the caption which k_max values correspond to the filter edges.
  6. [Section 7.3] The sentence 'our measurement error σ(f_NL) ∼ 50' should read 'our forecast error σ(f_NL) ∼ 50', since the paper does not perform a measurement from data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the estimator derivation, optimality check, and forecast are self-contained, and the self-cited reconstruction is validated on held-out simulations within the paper.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The cross-power estimator <Phi^2 delta> is obtained by rewriting the product-separable local-PNG bispectrum template (Eq. 3.6) into a convolution that becomes a configuration-space square (Eqs. 3.7-3.9), following the external near-optimal bispectrum estimator framework of Schmittfull et al. 2015. The optimality claim in Section 3.3 is supported by an explicit Fisher calculation comparing the bispectrum and cross-power errors under the same linear Gaussian assumptions, not by assuming the result. The reconstruction step cites the authors' prior CNN method (Chen et al. 2023) and Hada & Eisenstein 2018, but the load-bearing performance claims are demonstrated in this paper on 90 simulations excluded from training: residual power, propagator, and cross-correlation for both the density field (Fig. 3) and the squared-potential field (Fig. 4) are measured directly. The fNL forecast in Section 5.4 is an explicit Fisher estimate using simulation means as models and the fNL=+/-100 difference as the derivative; this is a self-contained sensitivity forecast, not a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The paper also explicitly acknowledges and characterizes the residual additive and multiplicative fNL biases in Section 6.3.2 and states that the forecast is unmarginalized, so the central improvement claim is presented with its limitations rather than forced by construction. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen scales (smoothing, cosine filter, damping, kmax) and on the assumption that a CNN trained on Gaussian simulations preserves a non-Gaussian signal it never saw. The paper is transparent about most of these, and the 2LPT effect is explicitly checked.

free parameters (5)
  • Gaussian smoothing scale R = 5, 10, 20 h^-1 Mpc
    Chosen by hand for Phi^2 construction and forecasting; affects the reconstructed cross-power and the f_NL error (Section 5.2, Table 1).
  • Cosine filter boundaries = kmin=0.2, kmax=0.25 h/Mpc
    Chosen to band-limit the Phi^2 convolution; the factor-of-three improvement uses this filter (Section 3.3, Table 1).
  • Damping scale for delta_G in template fits = 0, 2, 5 h^-1 Mpc (z=0); 1, 2, 3 h^-1 Mpc (z=1) for CNN+HE18, HE18, nonlinear
    Manually chosen so that bG is close to 1 in the fits (Section 6.2); a fitted, not predicted, choice.
  • HE18 reconstruction parameters = smoothing 10 h^-1 Mpc, iteration weight 0.5
    Fixed parameters from the prior HE18 algorithm, chosen by hand in this application (Section 5.1).
  • Analysis kmax = 0.1 and 0.2 h/Mpc
    Chosen as the scale cutoff for Fisher forecasts and template fits; the factor-of-three claim uses kmax=0.2 h/Mpc (Section 5.4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nonlinear density field is described by second-order Eulerian perturbation theory with growth, shift, tidal, and PNG terms (Eq. 6.5).
    Standard EPT, cited from [69]; used to model both nonlinear and reconstructed fields.
  • ad hoc to paper The reconstructed field obeys the same PT template with reduced quadratic coefficients.
    Section 6.1 states explicitly: 'For the reconstructed field... this is an ansatz.' The paper tests this by fitting.
  • standard math Gaussian covariance for the bispectrum and cross-power estimators.
    Appendix A and Section 3.3; covariance assumed Gaussian and parameter-independent.
  • ad hoc to paper The CNN trained on f_NL=0 simulations preserves the f_NL signal in f_NL != 0 fields.
    Section 5.1 describes training on f_NL=0; Section 6.3.2 finds residual multiplicative bias, so this axiom is only approximately satisfied.
  • domain assumption The 2LPT effect in initial conditions does not contaminate f_NL beyond the modeled level.
    Appendix C demonstrates the effect empirically for the Quijote initial conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing primordial non-Gaussianity by reconstructing the initial conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYAHYXZR

@misc{pith2026241200968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing primordial non-Gaussianity by reconstructing the initial conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYAHYXZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00968}
}
abstract

We propose to constrain the primordial (local-type) non-Gaussianity signal by first reconstructing the initial density field to remove the late time non-Gaussianities introduced by gravitational evolution. Our reconstruction algorithm combines perturbation theory on large scales with a convolutional neural network on small scales. We reconstruct the squared potential (that sources the non-Gaussian signal) out to $k=0.2\ h$/Mpc to an accuracy of 99.8%. We cross-correlate this squared potential field with the reconstructed density field and verify that this computationally inexpensive estimator has the same information content as the full matter bispectrum. As a proof of concept, our approach can yield up to a factor of three improvement in the $f_{\rm NL}$ constraints, although it does not yet include the complications of galaxy bias or imperfections in the reconstruction. These potential improvements make it a promising alternative to current approaches to constraining primordial non-Gaussianity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. DISCO-DJ II: a differentiable particle-mesh code for cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A GPU-accelerated, differentiable particle-mesh N-body code achieves per-cent-level power-spectrum accuracy with few time steps and recovers sigma_8 plus initial conditions from a noisy mock field.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Achúcarro, M

    A. Achúcarro, M. Biagetti, M. Braglia, G. Cabass, R. Caldwell, E. Castorina et al., Inflation: Theory and Observations, arXiv e-prints (2022) arXiv:2203.08128 [ 2203.08128]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Aghamousa, J

    DESI Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L.E. Allen et al., The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design, arXiv e-prints (2016) arXiv:1611.00036 [ 1611.00036]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Levi, L.E

    M. Levi, L.E. Allen, A. Raichoor, C. Baltay, S. BenZvi, F. Beutler et al., The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 51, p. 57, Sept., 2019, DOI [ 1907.10688]. – 31 –

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Amendola, S

    L. Amendola, S. Appleby, D. Bacon, T. Baker, M. Baldi, N. Bartolo et al., Cosmology and Fundamental Physics with the Euclid Satellite, Living Reviews in Relativity16 (2013) 6 [1206.1225]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: Dark Energy Science Collaboration, arXiv e-prints (2012) arXiv:1211.0310 [ 1211.0310]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Ivezić, S.M

    Ž. Ivezić, S.M. Kahn, J.A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman et al., LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products, ApJ 873 (2019) 111 [ 0805.2366]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Spergel, N

    D. Spergel, N. Gehrels, C. Baltay, D. Bennett, J. Breckinridge, M. Donahue et al., Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report, arXiv e-prints (2015) arXiv:1503.03757 [ 1503.03757]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    O. Doré, J. Bock, M. Ashby, P. Capak, A. Cooray, R. de Putter et al., Cosmology with the SPHEREX All-Sky Spectral Survey, arXiv e-prints (2014) arXiv:1412.4872 [ 1412.4872]

    arXiv 2014

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Doré, M.W

    O. Doré, M.W. Werner, M.L.N. Ashby, L.E. Bleem, J. Bock, J. Burt et al., Science Impacts of the SPHEREx All-Sky Optical to Near-Infrared Spectral Survey II: Report of a Community Workshop on the Scientific Synergies Between the SPHEREx Survey and Other Astronomy Observatories,...

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    C. Zhao, S. Huang, M. He, P. Montero-Camacho, Y. Liu, P. Renard et al., MUltiplexed Survey Telescope: Perspectives for Large-Scale Structure Cosmology in the Era of Stage-V Spectroscopic Survey, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2411.07970 [ 2411.07970]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    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]

    2025

  4. [12]

    P. Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso et al., The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2019 (2019) 056 [ 1808.07445]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Abazajian, P

    K.N. Abazajian, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, S.W. Allen, D. Alonso, K.S. Arnold et al., CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition, arXiv e-prints (2016) arXiv:1610.02743 [ 1610.02743]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abazajian, A

    K. Abazajian, A. Abdulghafour, G.E. Addison, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, M. Ajello et al., Snowmass 2021 CMB-S4 White Paper, arXiv e-prints (2022) arXiv:2203.08024 [ 2203.08024]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Senatore, K.M

    L. Senatore, K.M. Smith and M. Zaldarriaga, Non-Gaussianities in single field inflation and their optimal limits from the WMAP 5-year data, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2010 (2010) 028 [ 0905.3746]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Cabass, M.M

    G. Cabass, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga, Constraints on Single-Field Inflation from the BOSS Galaxy Survey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 021301 [2201.07238]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alvarez, T

    M. Alvarez, T. Baldauf, J.R. Bond, N. Dalal, R. de Putter, O. Doré et al., Testing Inflation with Large Scale Structure: Connecting Hopes with Reality, arXiv e-prints (2014) arXiv:1412.4671 [ 1412.4671]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Akrami, F

    Planck Collaboration, Y. Akrami, F. Arroja, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. IX. Constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity, A&A 641 (2020) A9 [1905.05697]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chaussidon, C

    E. Chaussidon, C. Yèche, A. de Mattia, C. Payerne, P. McDonald, A.J. Ross et al., Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity with DESI 2024 LRG and QSO samples, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2411.17623 [ 2411.17623]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Schlegel, J.A

    D. Schlegel, J.A. Kollmeier and S. Ferraro, The MegaMapper: a z>2 spectroscopic instrument for the study of Inflation and Dark Energy, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 51, p. 229, Sept., 2019, DOI [ 1907.11171]. – 32 –

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sailer, E

    N. Sailer, E. Castorina, S. Ferraro and M. White, Cosmology at high redshift - a probe of fundamental physics, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021 (2021) 049 [ 2106.09713]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mueller, M

    E.-M. Mueller, M. Rezaie, W.J. Percival, A.J. Ross, R. Ruggeri, H.-J. Seo et al., Primordial non-Gaussianity from the completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey II: measurements in Fourier space with optimal weights, MNRAS 514 (2022) 3396

    2022

  15. [23]

    Castorina, N

    E. Castorina, N. Hand, U. Seljak, F. Beutler, C.-H. Chuang, C. Zhao et al., Redshift-weighted constraints on primordial non-gaussianity from the clustering of the eboss dr14 quasars in fourier space, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019 (2019) 010

    2019

  16. [24]

    S. Ho, N. Agarwal, A.D. Myers, R. Lyons, A. Disbrow, H.-J. Seo et al., Sloan digital sky survey iii photometric quasar clustering: probing the initial conditions of the universe, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2015 (2015) 040

    2015

  17. [25]

    Leistedt, H.V

    B. Leistedt, H.V. Peiris and N. Roth, Constraints on primordial non-gaussianity from800 000 photometric quasars, Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 221301

    2014

  18. [26]

    Dalal, O

    N. Dalal, O. Doré, D. Huterer and A. Shirokov, Imprints of primordial non-gaussianities on large-scale structure: Scale-dependent bias and abundance of virialized objects, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 123514

    2008

  19. [27]

    Matarrese and L

    S. Matarrese and L. Verde, The effect of primordial non-gaussianity on halo bias, The Astrophysical Journal 677 (2008) L77

    2008

  20. [28]

    Slosar, C

    A. Slosar, C. Hirata, U. Seljak, S. Ho and N. Padmanabhan, Constraints on local primordial non-gaussianity from large scale structure, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2008 (2008) 031

    2008

  21. [29]

    Seljak, Extracting Primordial Non-Gaussianity without Cosmic Variance, Phys

    U. Seljak, Extracting Primordial Non-Gaussianity without Cosmic Variance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 021302 [ 0807.1770]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yamauchi, K

    D. Yamauchi, K. Takahashi and M. Oguri, Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity via a multitracer technique with surveys by Euclid and the Square Kilometre Array, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 083520 [ 1407.5453]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ferramacho, M.G

    L.D. Ferramacho, M.G. Santos, M.J. Jarvis and S. Camera, Radio galaxy populations and the multitracer technique: pushing the limits on primordial non-Gaussianity, MNRAS 442 (2014) 2511 [ 1402.2290]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Alonso and P.G

    D. Alonso and P.G. Ferreira, Constraining ultralarge-scale cosmology with multiple tracers in optical and radio surveys, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 063525 [ 1507.03550]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fonseca, S

    J. Fonseca, S. Camera, M.G. Santos and R. Maartens, Hunting Down Horizon-scale Effects with Multi-wavelength Surveys, ApJ 812 (2015) L22 [ 1507.04605]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Moradinezhad Dizgah, M

    A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, M. Biagetti, E. Sefusatti, V. Desjacques and J. Noreña, Primordial non-Gaussianity from biased tracers: likelihood analysis of real-space power spectrum and bispectrum, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021 (2021) 015 [ 2010.14523]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ferraro and M.J

    S. Ferraro and M.J. Wilson, Inflation and Dark Energy from spectroscopy at z > 2, BAAS 51 (2019) 72 [ 1903.09208]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Scoccimarro, E

    R. Scoccimarro, E. Sefusatti and M. Zaldarriaga, Probing primordial non-Gaussianity with large-scale structure, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 103513 [ astro-ph/0312286]

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sefusatti and E

    E. Sefusatti and E. Komatsu, Bispectrum of galaxies from high-redshift galaxy surveys: Primordial non-Gaussianity and nonlinear galaxy bias, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 083004 [0705.0343]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Baldauf, U

    T. Baldauf, U. Seljak and L. Senatore, Primordial non-Gaussianity in the bispectrum of the halo density field, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2011 (2011) 006 [ 1011.1513]. – 33 –

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Barreira, On the impact of galaxy bias uncertainties on primordial non-Gaussianity constraints, J

    A. Barreira, On the impact of galaxy bias uncertainties on primordial non-Gaussianity constraints, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020 (2020) 031 [ 2009.06622]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Heinrich, O

    C. Heinrich, O. Dore and E. Krause, Measuring fNL with the SPHEREx Multi-tracer Redshift Space Bispectrum, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2311.13082 [ 2311.13082]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Cabass, M.M

    G. Cabass, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox, M. Simonović and M. Zaldarriaga, Constraints on multifield inflation from the BOSS galaxy survey, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 043506 [2204.01781]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [43]

    D’Amico, M

    G. D’Amico, M. Lewandowski, L. Senatore and P. Zhang, Limits on primordial non-Gaussianities from BOSS galaxy-clustering data, arXiv e-prints (2022) arXiv:2201.11518 [2201.11518]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Coulton, F

    W.R. Coulton, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, D. Jamieson, M. Baldi, G. Jung, D. Karagiannis et al., Quijote-PNG: The Information Content of the Halo Power Spectrum and Bispectrum, ApJ 943 (2023) 178 [ 2206.15450]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [45]

    U. Giri, M. Münchmeyer and K.M. Smith, Constraining fN Lusing the Large-Scale Modulation of Small-Scale Statistics, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2305.03070 [ 2305.03070]

    2023

  37. [46]

    G. Jung, A. Ravenni, M. Liguori, M. Baldi, W.R. Coulton, F. Villaescusa-Navarro et al., Quijote-PNG: Optimizing the summary statistics to measure Primordial non-Gaussianity, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2403.00490 [ 2403.00490]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Schmittfull, T

    M. Schmittfull, T. Baldauf and U. Seljak, Near optimal bispectrum estimators for large-scale structure, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 043530 [ 1411.6595]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Komatsu and D.N

    E. Komatsu and D.N. Spergel, Acoustic signatures in the primary microwave background bispectrum, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 063002 [ astro-ph/0005036]

    2001 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Taruya, K

    A. Taruya, K. Koyama and T. Matsubara, Signature of primordial non-Gaussianity on the matter power spectrum, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 123534 [ 0808.4085]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Moradinezhad Dizgah, H

    A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, H. Lee, M. Schmittfull and C. Dvorkin, Capturing non-Gaussianity of the large-scale structure with weighted skew-spectra, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020 (2020) 011 [ 1911.05763]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Fisher, The logic of inductive inference, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society98 (1935) 39

    R.A. Fisher, The logic of inductive inference, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society98 (1935) 39

    1935

  43. [52]

    Tegmark, A.N

    M. Tegmark, A.N. Taylor and A.F. Heavens, Karhunen-Loève Eigenvalue Problems in Cosmology: How Should We Tackle Large Data Sets?, ApJ 480 (1997) 22 [ astro-ph/9603021]

    1997 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Tegmark, Measuring Cosmological Parameters with Galaxy Surveys, Phys

    M. Tegmark, Measuring Cosmological Parameters with Galaxy Surveys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3806 [ astro-ph/9706198]

    1997 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Villaescusa-Navarro, C

    F. Villaescusa-Navarro, C. Hahn, E. Massara, A. Banerjee, A.M. Delgado, D.K. Ramanah et al., The Quijote Simulations, ApJS 250 (2020) 2 [ 1909.05273]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Coulton, F

    W.R. Coulton, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, D. Jamieson, M. Baldi, G. Jung, D. Karagiannis et al., Quijote-PNG: Simulations of primordial non-Gaussianity and the information content of the matter field power spectrum and bispectrum, arXiv e-prints (2022) arXiv:2206.01619 [2206.01619]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    G. Jung, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, M. Baldi, W.R. Coulton, D. Jamieson et al., Quijote-PNG: Quasi-maximum Likelihood Estimation of Primordial Non-Gaussianity in the Nonlinear Dark Matter Density Field, ApJ 940 (2022) 71 [ 2206.01624]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Hockney and J.W

    R.W. Hockney and J.W. Eastwood, Computer simulation using particles, Bristol: Hilger (1988). – 34 –

    1988

  49. [58]

    Scoccimarro, L

    R. Scoccimarro, L. Hui, M. Manera and K.C. Chan, Large-scale bias and efficient generation of initial conditions for nonlocal primordial non-Gaussianity, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 083002 [1108.5512]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [59]

    X. Chen, F. Zhu, S. Gaines and N. Padmanabhan, Effective cosmic density field reconstruction with convolutional neural network, MNRAS 523 (2023) 6272 [ 2306.10538]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Shallue and D.J

    C.J. Shallue and D.J. Eisenstein, Reconstructing cosmological initial conditions from late-time structure with convolutional neural networks, MNRAS 520 (2023) 6256 [ 2207.12511]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    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

  53. [62]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt, The galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum in redshift space, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2018 (2018) 035 [ 1806.04015]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Chudaykin, M.M

    A. Chudaykin, M.M. Ivanov, O.H.E. Philcox and M. Simonović, Nonlinear perturbation theory extension of the Boltzmann code CLASS, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 063533 [ 2004.10607]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [64]

    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

  56. [65]

    Hada and D.J

    R. Hada and D.J. Eisenstein, An iterative reconstruction of cosmological initial density fields, MNRAS 478 (2018) 1866 [ 1804.04738]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Eisenstein, H.-J

    D.J. Eisenstein, H.-J. Seo, E. Sirko and D.N. Spergel, Improving Cosmological Distance Measurements by Reconstruction of the Baryon Acoustic Peak, ApJ 664 (2007) 675 [astro-ph/0604362]

    2007 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Chen and N

    X. Chen and N. Padmanabhan, Analysis of an iterative reconstruction method in comparison of the standard reconstruction method, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2311.09531 [ 2311.09531]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Sherwin and M

    B.D. Sherwin and M. Zaldarriaga, Shift of the baryon acoustic oscillation scale: A simple physical picture, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 103523 [ 1202.3998]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Schmittfull, Y

    M. Schmittfull, Y. Feng, F. Beutler, B. Sherwin and M.Y. Chu, Eulerian BAO reconstructions and N -point statistics, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 123522 [ 1508.06972]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Hahn, M.J

    C. Hahn, M.J. Wilson, O. Ruiz-Macias, S. Cole, D.H. Weinberg, J. Moustakas et al., The DESI Bright Galaxy Survey: Final Target Selection, Design, and Validation, AJ 165 (2023) 253 [2208.08512]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Shirasaki, N.S

    M. Shirasaki, N.S. Sugiyama, R. Takahashi and F.-S. Kitaura, Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity with postreconstructed galaxy bispectrum in redshift space, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 023506 [ 2010.04567]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Flöss and P.D

    T. Flöss and P.D. Meerburg, Improving constraints on primordial non-Gaussianity using neural network based reconstruction, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2305.07018 [ 2305.07018]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Sugiyama, S

    N.S. Sugiyama, S. Saito, F. Beutler and H.-J. Seo, A complete FFT-based decomposition formalism for the redshift-space bispectrum, MNRAS 484 (2019) 364 [ 1803.02132]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Schmittfull and A.M

    M. Schmittfull and A.M. Dizgah, Galaxy skew-spectra in redshift-space, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2021 (2021) 020 [ 2010.14267]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Hou, A.M

    J. Hou, A.M. Dizgah, C. Hahn, M. Eickenberg, S. Ho, P. Lemos et al., Cosmological constraints from the redshift-space galaxy skew spectra, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 103528 [ 2401.15074]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Kvasiuk, M

    Y. Kvasiuk, M. Münchmeyer and K. Smith, A Tale of Two Fields: Neural Network-Enhanced non-Gaussianity Search with Halos, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2410.01007 [ 2410.01007]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Andrews, J

    A. Andrews, J. Jasche, G. Lavaux and F. Schmidt, Bayesian field-level inference of primordial non-Gaussianity using next-generation galaxy surveys, MNRAS 520 (2023) 5746 [ 2203.08838]. – 35 –

    2023 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Sullivan and S.-F

    J.M. Sullivan and S.-F. Chen, Local Primordial Non-Gaussian Bias at the Field Level, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2410.18039 [ 2410.18039]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Andrews, J

    A. Andrews, J. Jasche, G. Lavaux, F. Leclercq, F. Finelli, Y. Akrami et al., Euclid: Field-level inference of primordial non-Gaussianity and cosmic initial conditions, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2412.11945 [ 2412.11945]

    2024

  71. [80]

    Nguyen, F

    N.-M. Nguyen, F. Schmidt, B. Tucci, M. Reinecke and A. Kostić, How Much Information Can Be Extracted from Galaxy Clustering at the Field Level?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 221006 [2403.03220]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Krause, Y

    Beyond-2pt Collaboration, :, E. Krause, Y. Kobayashi, A.N. Salcedo, M.M. Ivanov et al., A Parameter-Masked Mock Data Challenge for Beyond-Two-Point Galaxy Clustering Statistics, arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2405.02252 [ 2405.02252]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Baldauf, Advanced cosmology lecture notes,

    T. Baldauf, Advanced cosmology lecture notes,

  74. [83]

    Chan and L

    K.C. Chan and L. Blot, Assessment of the information content of the power spectrum and bispectrum, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 023528 [ 1610.06585]. – 36 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.