Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 19 references

AI-Powered Reconstruction of Dark Matter Velocity Fields from Redshift-Space Halo Distribution

T0 review · 5 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 A UNet trained on N-body simulations can reconstruct the real-space dark matter density, velocity magnitude, and momentum fields from a sparse redshift-space halo distribution, with power spectra matching the simulation truth within 2σ.

desk verdict Solid simulation-side extension of velocity reconstruction with UNet, but the generalization claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11280 v2 pith:RJUXXLFL submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.CO

Xu Xiao , Jiacheng Ding , XiaoLin Luo , Sun Ke Lan , Liang Xiao , Shuai Liu , Xin Wang , Le Zhang
show 1 more author
Xiao-Dong Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords darkmattervelocityfieldredshift-spacedistortionsUNetN-bodysimulationspowerspectrummultipolesmachinelearningcosmologymomentumlarge-scalestructure
topics 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

At issue is whether the three-dimensional velocity field of dark matter can be recovered from the only data a galaxy survey actually gives: sparse positions of halos in redshift space, where velocities contaminate distance estimates. The paper claims that a UNet neural network, trained on N-body simulations, performs this inversion: from the redshift-space halo number density (in four mass bins, with or without mass weights) it outputs the real-space DM density, velocity magnitude and direction, and momentum field $\mathbf{m}=(1+\delta_{\rm DM})\mathbf{v}$. On test boxes not used in training, the reconstructed fields correlate with the simulation truth at about 0.9, the reconstructed power spectra for density, velocity, and momentum agree with truth within $2\sigma$ for $k\in[0.05,0.3]\,h/{\rm Mpc}$ and beat linear theory, and the same network yields unbiased quadrupole and hexadecapole multipoles after automatic RSD correction. If this transfers to real surveys, it gives a data-driven alternative to analytic RSD and velocity reconstruction methods, with uses for cosmic web studies, kSZ measurements, and BAO reconstruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a three-block UNet with 3D convolutions operating on $128^3$ cubes of side $300\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, trained in two stages: first to map the four-channel input (halos in four mass bins) to the real-space DM density field, then to combine $\rho_s$, $\rho_{\rm DM}$, and a linear-theory velocity prediction $\mathbf{v}_{\rm lin}$ to reconstruct velocity magnitude and direction (or momentum) via a two-term loss that separately penalizes magnitude error and angle error through $1-\cos\phi$. The linear velocity field, computed from the redshift-space density with a bias factor, anchors the large-scale modes that small training boxes cannot sample.

What would settle it

Apply the trained network to a mock halo catalog from a different N-body simulation with a visibly different cosmology (for example, a different $\sigma_8$ or $\Omega_m$) or at a different redshift, and check whether the reconstructed density and velocity power spectra still lie within $2\sigma$ of the truth over $k \in [0.05, 0.3]\,h/{\rm Mpc}$; a clear degradation would show the mapping is tied to the training simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that a UNet-based pipeline trained on the CosmicGrowth simulation at $z = 0.59$ learns a field-to-field mapping that inverts the redshift-space distortion: input $\rho_s(\mathbf{x})$ (sparse halo number density, split into four mass intervals, optionally mass-weighted) is transformed into the real-space DM density $\rho_{\rm DM}$, velocity magnitude $|\mathbf{v}|$, direction $\hat{v}$, momentum magnitude $|\mathbf{m}|$, and direction $\hat{m}$. Validation uses 25 previously unseen boxes of side $600\,h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, with correlation coefficients $C_r$ near 0.9 and relative deviations $|R| < 0.13$ over $k\in[0.05,0.3]\,h/{\rm Mpc}$ for density and velocity power spectra; for velocity and momentum divergence, $|R| < 0.06$ on $k\in[0.05,0.1]\,h/{\rm Mpc}$. The paper further states that the UNet-corrected power spectrum quadrupole and hexadecapole agree with the true real-space multipoles at the $2\sigma$ level for $k\in[0.03,0.4]\,h/{\rm Mpc}$, and that omitting precise halo masses hardly changes the accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The mapping is learned from one cosmological simulation at a single redshift with one halo finder and mass threshold, and the paper asserts but does not test that the chosen cosmology is close enough to current CMB constraints that this choice does not matter; if real surveys differ in geometry, selection function, bias, or cosmology, the network's 2-sigma agreement may not persist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reconstructed real-space density and velocity power spectra match simulation truth within $2\sigma$ for $k \in [0.05, 0.3]\,h/{\rm Mpc}$, outperforming linear theory over the same range.
  • The same pipeline gives quadrupole and hexadecapole power spectrum multipoles after automated RSD correction that agree with real-space truth at the $2\sigma$ level.
  • Accuracy is nearly unchanged when halo mass information is omitted, so the method is applicable to surveys where only rough mass estimates exist.
  • The reconstructed momentum field, a density-weighted velocity, is recovered comparably to the velocity itself, enabling kSZ-related analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Testable extension: train or fine-tune on simulations with different cosmological parameters and redshifts, then measure the degradation; the paper's single-simulation validation leaves this open.
  • The two-stage design (density first, then velocity using a linear-theory anchor) suggests a general recipe: hand the network the best cheap analytic guess as an input channel, rather than expecting it to invent large-scale modes.
  • A realistic survey mask and selection function will likely degrade the quoted $2\sigma$ agreement; masked mocks would settle by how much.
  • Because the network learns a nonlinear bias-RSD inversion, it may also be usable for other derived fields such as vorticity or tidal field, though the paper does not demonstrate this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-step UNet-based deep learning pipeline to reconstruct the real-space dark matter density, velocity (magnitude and direction), and momentum fields from a sparse, redshift-space halo number density field. Training and validation are performed on sub-boxes of the CosmicGrowth N-body simulation at z = 0.59, with a fixed WMAP-like cosmology, and testing uses larger boxes from the same simulation. The authors report field-level correlation coefficients C_r ~ 0.88–0.96 and relative deviations R < 0.1 for most fields, power spectra that agree with the simulation truth within 2σ over k in [0.05, 0.3] h/Mpc, and RSD-corrected density multipoles (quadrupole and hexadecapole) consistent with the true real-space multipoles within 2σ. They also claim robustness to the absence of accurate halo mass weighting. The abstract summarizes these results as 'better than 10% relative error and a correlation coefficient of 0.88'.

Significance. If the results hold beyond the single simulation used, the method would be a valuable tool for cosmology: it would provide an automated RSD correction and produce real-space velocity and momentum fields that can inform kSZ studies, cosmic web analyses, and BAO reconstruction. The paper's strengths are its comprehensive evaluation of the reconstruction within the CosmicGrowth simulation—including power spectra, multipoles, 2PCF, and two mass-weighting schemes—and its comparison to linear theory. However, the significance for real surveys is currently limited by the lack of validation on independent initial conditions, cosmologies, or redshifts, and by the untested dependence on a bias parameter fitted to the same simulation. The work is a solid demonstration of feasibility within one simulation, but the 'broad applicability' claim is not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sections 2.1, 2.3, 3.3] All training, validation, and test boxes are sub-boxes of the same CosmicGrowth simulation; the test boxes therefore share the parent box's long-wavelength modes with the training data. The quoted 2σ agreement in Sections 3.3–3.5 and the R < 0.13 measures do not yet demonstrate generalization to an independent cosmic realization. The authors should validate on a simulation with different initial conditions (ideally different cosmology or at least different redshift) or otherwise quantify the extent to which shared large-scale modes contribute to the reported accuracy.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (4)] The linear bias b used in v_lin is measured from the same simulation's halo and DM power spectra, and v_lin is a key input to the velocity reconstruction network. Because a real survey does not provide the true DM power spectrum, b must be obtained from an assumed bias model. The paper does not test sensitivity of the reconstructed fields to b (e.g., a ±20% perturbation or a scale-dependent bias model). This leaves the transfer to real data unquantified.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eq. (11)] The error estimate for the power spectrum applies a rescaling factor sqrt(V_all/V_overlap) = 0.4, but the test-box geometry is described inconsistently (1200×1200×600 Mpc/h cannot be divided into 25 non-overlapping 600 Mpc/h boxes) and the overlap between sub-boxes means the effective number of independent modes is unclear. Since the 2σ error bars in Sections 3.3–3.5 are central to the claimed precision, the error propagation should be justified with a clear description of the box layout and independence.
  4. [Section 2.2, Section 3.2, Fig. 4] The 'with/without M_halo weighting' comparison does not test the absence of halo mass information: both schemes use four mass bins as input channels, so even the 'without' scheme retains bin membership information. The paper does not test the effect of mass-estimation scatter that would mis-assign halos to bins, nor of a reduced number of mass bins. The conclusion that the model is robust to incomplete mass information is therefore stronger than the data support.
  5. [Abstract, Table 3, Sections 3.3–3.4] The abstract's 'better than 10% relative error' is not matched by the results: Table 3 reports field-level R values below 0.1, but Section 3.3 reports R = 0.15 for the density auto power spectrum in the 'with M_halo weighting' case and Section 3.4 reports |R| up to 0.13 at low k. The abstract should specify which observable achieves <10% accuracy and should be made consistent with the quoted power-spectrum results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'cell resolution of 2.35 h^-1 Mpc^3' should be 'grid spacing of 2.35 h^-1 Mpc' or 'cells of (2.35 h^-1 Mpc)^3'.
  2. [Section 2.1] The mass interval notation 'log10(M/M⊙) ∈ [15.01, 13.30, 12.56, 12.31, 12.17]' is unclear; please list the intervals explicitly.
  3. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'with an accuracy exceeding 1% relative to the statistical uncertainty' is vague; rephrase to state the actual precision.
  4. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'the boxe have a physical size of 1200×1200×600(Mpc/h)^3' appears to be a typo; the simulation box is 1200^3.
  5. [Section 3.5] The valid k range for the 2σ agreement is given as 'k∈[0.06,0.3]' in the body but 'k∈[0.03,0.4]' in the concluding paragraph of the same section; make these consistent.
  6. [References] The reference 'Ganeshaiah Veena et al. 2023' appears twice (as 'Veena et al. 2023' in the text and as a separate reference entry); also check that 'Wang et al. (2024)' in the text matches the reference 'Wang, Z., Shi, F., Yang, X., et al. 2024'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UNet outputs are learned nonlinear maps evaluated against simulation truth, not re-statements of the fitted linear input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a UNet trained on CosmicGrowth simulations can map sparse redshift-space halo density fields to real-space DM density, velocity, and momentum fields. The reconstructed fields are produced by a learned nonlinear network, not by evaluating an equation that contains the target field as an input. The linear-theory velocity v_lin in Eq. (2) uses a bias b fitted in Eq. (4) from the same simulation's halo and DM power spectra, but b is only used to construct an auxiliary input feature; the final velocity/momentum prediction is not equal to v_lin or to any closed-form expression involving b. The reported metrics (R < 0.13, correlation coefficients, 2-sigma power-spectrum agreement) compare the network output with the simulation truth in held-out test boxes; these test boxes are not used in training, and the comparison is against an independent target field rather than against the input field. The citations to Wu et al. (2021, 2023) supply architecture and a prior velocity-reconstruction method, but no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to forbid alternatives or force the choice of output. The main legitimate limitation is that training and evaluation use sub-boxes of the same parent CosmicGrowth simulation, so the results demonstrate performance within that simulation's realization rather than broad transfer to different cosmologies, redshifts, or survey masks. This is a generalization and external-validity concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain: no equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as the central prediction. Therefore the analysis finds no significant circularity.

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

The method is a supervised learning pipeline; it relies on simulation-truth labels and a set of fitted or hand-chosen parameters (bias, loss weights, smoothing scale, mass bins, hyperparameters). No new physical entities are introduced. The main epistemic risk is that these fitted quantities are all anchored to a single N-body simulation.

free parameters (5)
  • Linear bias b = 1.85 (without M_halo weighting), 2.57 (with M_halo weighting)
    Computed from Eq. 4 as the integrated halo-to-DM power ratio over k<0.3 h/Mpc in the same simulation; used to build the linear velocity input v_lin (Eq. 2).
  • Loss weighting coefficients (1/4, 3/4) = 0.25, 0.75
    Hand-chosen in Eq. 6 based on the number of output channels (1 magnitude vs 3 direction). Not derived from data; a modeling choice.
  • Gaussian smoothing scale for FoG suppression = sigma_z = 3.5 Mpc/h
    Chosen in Section 3.5 to improve the reconstructed isotropic 2PCF at r_perp<10 Mpc/h; a post-hoc smoothing applied to the RSD-corrected field.
  • Halo mass bin boundaries = [15.01, 13.30, 12.56, 12.31, 12.17] in log10(M/Msun)
    Chosen by hand to produce four channels with the target number densities in Section 2.2.
  • UNet hyperparameters = Not reported (tuned via Optuna)
    Learning rate, dropout, channel count, and batch size were optimized on validation loss (Section 2.3, Table 2), but the selected final values are not listed in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The adopted WMAP-based flat LCDM cosmology is representative for velocity reconstruction; Planck differences are within 2σ.
    Section 2.1 claims the choice of cosmological parameters is not significant without a cross-cosmology test.
  • domain assumption N-body simulations with FoF halo finding provide a truthful ground truth for the dark matter velocity and momentum fields in the real universe.
    The entire training and test paradigm relies on simulation truth; Section 2.1 uses the CosmicGrowth simulation as ground truth.
  • domain assumption The standard Doppler RSD mapping (Eq. 1) and the linear bias relation (Eq. 2) are valid for constructing the input features.
    Eq. 2 uses linear perturbation theory and a constant, scale-independent bias b to build v_lin, which is fed as an input to the UNet.
  • domain assumption The CIC grid with 512^3 mesh and cell size 2.35 Mpc/h resolves the range of scales relevant to the reconstruction (k up to 0.3 h/Mpc).
    The choice of mesh and box size in Section 2.1 determines the effective resolution and Nyquist frequency; no convergence test is shown.
  • standard math Linear perturbation theory relationship theta = -H f delta (continuity equation) provides a valid large-scale prior for the velocity field.
    Used to derive v_lin in Eq. 2 as the linear velocity prediction in redshift space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Powered Reconstruction of Dark Matter Velocity Fields from Redshift-Space Halo Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJUXXLFL

@misc{pith2026241111280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Powered Reconstruction of Dark Matter Velocity Fields from Redshift-Space Halo Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJUXXLFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11280}
}
abstract

We propose a UNet-based deep learning model to reconstruct the real-space dark matter (DM) velocity field from the redshift-space distribution of sparse DM halos. Using various statistical measures, we show that the reconstructed velocity components--including velocity magnitude, momentum, and divergence--closely match the ground truth, achieving better than 10% relative error and a correlation coefficient of 0.88. In the power spectrum comparison over $k \in [0.05, 0.3] h/{\rm Mpc}$, the UNet reconstruction outperforms linear theory and agrees with the true field within $2\sigma$. The model also effectively corrects redshift-space distortions (RSD), yielding unbiased power spectrum multipoles of DM fields within $2\sigma$. Notably, the UNet remains robust even with incomplete halo mass information. These results highlight the model's broad applicability to cosmological analyses, including RSD, cosmic web studies, the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, and BAO reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Training scheme for reconstructing the DM velocity field in real space. The reconstruction process involves two major steps. The first step is to reconstruct the DM density field, 𝜌DM, from the sparse DM halo density field, 𝜌𝑠, in redshift space. To achieve this, we trained a UNet model to predict 𝜌DM. Subsequently, we trained another UNet model that takes as input the concatenated data from the linear velocity pred… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UNet neural network architecture employed for the reconstruction of the DM density and velocity/momentum fields. A 1283 box with a side length of 300 Mpc/ℎ is employed in the UNet architecture as the input. This architecture is comprised of a three-block structure: a up-convolution block, a down-convolution block, and a final convolution block. The output fields have dimensions of 1283 , with a volume of 3003 (Mpc/ℎ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Loss of the training (black) and validation (red) sets. The UNnet model achieves convergence after approximately 1000 epochs of training for the DM density, DM velocity, and DM momentum (from left to right), respectively. The loss function utilized for all models is the MSE loss function, as defined in Eqs. 5 and 6. This section will present the performance assessment of the trained UNet model, with the results pres… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the reconstructed fields by UNet with the true fields for velocity (upper) and momentum (lower) for slices from the test set, using the “without 𝑀halo weighting” weighting scheme. Each slice volume is 68 × 68 × 23 (ℎ −1Mpc) 3 . The sparse DM halo field (𝛿…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Joint probability distributions of the reconstructed fields and the true fields for velocity magnitude (|v|) and momentum magnitude (|m|), using the weighting schemes of “with 𝑀halo weighting” and “without 𝑀halo weighting” for comparison. For each field, the distributi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the predicted joint distribution with the simulation truth for the “with 𝑀halo weighting” weighting scheme. The top-left and bottom-left panels show the joint distributions of density-velocity, 𝜌(𝛿|𝑣), and density-momentum, 𝜌(𝛿|𝑚), respectively. The top-r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the UNet-predicted density power spec￾tra with the true one. Each plot displays the predicted (blue) and true (black) values, along with the redshift-space power spectrum of the DM halos (red). The left and right panels illustrate the weighting schemes o…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the UNet-reconstructed momentum/velocity power spectra with the simulation truth for the two mass weighting schemes. The specific field and the weighting scheme are clearly indicated in each panel. The bottom panels present the resulting relative deviati…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the two-dimensional anisotropic 2PCFs, 𝜉 (𝑟⊥, 𝑟 ∥ ), of density fields between the prediction and the simula￾tion truth in real space for “with 𝑀halos weighting” scheme. The results are based on a total of 25 boxes, each with a side length of 600 Mpc/ℎ. …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the UNet-reconstructed power spectrum multipoles of the DM fields with the truth is presented. Top: a comparison of the measured quadrupole (𝑃2) of the DM halos in redshift space (red dashed), the UNet-reconstructed DM field (blue dashed) and the true va…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., & Koyama, M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.10902, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.10902 Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., & Koyama...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.10902 2014

  2. [3]

    2018, Astrophys

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.06958 Chen, J., Zhang, P., Zheng, Y., Yu, Y., & Jing, Y. 2018, Astrophys. J., 861, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca2f Clifton, T., Ferreira, P. G., Padilla, A., & Skordis, C. 2012, Phys. Rept., 513, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001 Dreissigacker, C., Sharma, R., Messenger, C., Zhao, R., & Prix, R. 2019, Phys. Rev., D100, 044...

    arXiv 1905

  3. [4]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1222 Gebhard, T

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03156 Ganeshaiah Veena, P., Lilow, R., & Nusser, A. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1222 Gebhard, T. D., Kilbertus, N., Harry, I., & Schölkopf, B. 2019, in Convolutional neural networks: a magic bullet for gravitational-wave detection? https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08693 Gillet, N., Mesinger, A., Greig, B., Liu, A., ...

    arXiv 1906

  4. [5]

    M., & Hatt, D

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.00543 Jennings, E., Baugh, C. M., & Hatt, D. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 446, 793, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2043 Jennings, W. D., Watkinson, C. A., Abdalla, F. B., & McEwen, J. D. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 483, 2907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3168 Jing, Y. 2018, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 62, 19511, d...

    arXiv 1908

  5. [6]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00568 Li, Y., Ni, Y., Croft, R. A. C., et al. 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022038118 Linder, E. V. 2005, PhRvD, 72, 043529, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.043529 Linder, E. V., & Jenkins, A. 2003, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 346, 573, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07112.x Lochner, M.,...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1907

  6. [7]

    V., Pontzen, A., & Lochner, M

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.06339 Lucie-Smith, L., Peiris, H. V., Pontzen, A., & Lochner, M. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 479, 3405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1719 Makinen, T. L., Lancaster, L., Villaescusa-Navarro, F., et al. 2021, JCAP, 04, 081, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/04/081 Mao, T.-X., Wang, J., Li, B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.102...

    arXiv 1906

  7. [8]

    CMB-GAN: Fast Simulations of Cosmic Microwave background anisotropy maps using Deep Learning

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.04682 Modi, C., Feng, Y., & Seljak, U. 2018, JCAP, 1810, 028, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/028 Monadi, R., Ho, M.-F., Cooksey, K. L., & Bird, S. 2023, in . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258427043 Moss, A

    work page Pith review arXiv 1908

  8. [10]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.02557 Münchmeyer, M., & Smith, K. M

    arXiv 1903

Show all 19 references
  1. [11]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2113 Ntampaka, M., et al

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05846 Ni, Y., Li, Y., Lachance, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2113 Ntampaka, M., et al

    1905 arXiv

  2. [12]

    2012, JCAP, 2012, 014, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/11/014 Pan, S., Liu, M., Forero-Romero, J., et al

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10159 Okumura, T., Seljak, U., & Desjacques, V. 2012, JCAP, 2012, 014, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/11/014 Pan, S., Liu, M., Forero-Romero, J., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 110412, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1586-3 Pa...

    1902 arXiv

  3. [13]

    E., & Sabiu, C

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10376 Qin, F., Parkinson, D., Hong, S. E., & Sabiu, C. G. 2023, JCAP, 06, 062, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/062 Ramanah, D. K., Charnock, T., & Lavaux, G. 2019, Phys. Rev., D100, 043515, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043515 Ravanbakhsh, S., Oliva, J., ...

    1905 arXiv

  4. [15]

    2004, Phys

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05167 Scoccimarro, R. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.083007 Seljak, U., & McDonald, P. 2011, JCAP, 2011, 039, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/11/039 Shallue, C. J., & Eisenstein, D. J. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6256, doi: 10.1093/mnras/...

    2004 arXiv

  5. [17]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07491 Tanimura, H., Bonnefous, A., Liu, J., & Ganguly, S

    arXiv

  6. [19]

    2015a, Phys

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05965 Zheng, Y., Zhang, P., & Jing, Y. 2015a, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 123512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123512 —. 2015b, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 043523, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.043523 Zheng, Y., Zhang, P., Jing, Y., Lin, W., & Pan, J. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 103...

    1902 arXiv

  7. [2017]

    A., et al

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.02033 Reid, B. A., et al. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 426, 2719, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21779.x Reyes, R., Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., et al. 2010, Nature, 464, 256, doi: 10.1038/nature08857 Rodriguez, A. C., Kacprzak, T., Lucchi, A., e...

    2012 arXiv

  8. [2018]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06441 Muthukrishna, D., Parkinson, D., & Tucker, B

    arXiv

  9. [2019]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10563 Chardin, J., Uhlrich, G., Aubert, D., et al

    1903 arXiv

  10. [2024]

    2010, Phys

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14239 18 Taruya, A., Nishimichi, T., & Saito, S. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 063522, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063522 Tewes, M., Kuntzer, T., Nakajima, R., et al. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 621, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833775 Tojeiro, R., et al. 201...

    2010 arXiv

  11. [2025]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12621 Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.03757. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.03757 Springer, O. M., Ofek, E. O., Weiss, Y., & Merten, J

    2015

Pith tools

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