Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Cosmology in the Einstein Telescope era: comparing traditional and simulation-based methods for population inference

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulation-based inference reproduces the Bayesian posterior for dark siren cosmology from an order-$10^4$ event catalogue.

desk verdict A careful, reproducible proof-of-concept that MNRE can match hierarchical Bayesian inference on O(10^4) ET dark sirens, but the headline agreement is only qualitative and the HBI benchmark leans on an approximate selection function. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04005 v1 pith:WADEC3QI submitted 2026-08-04 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IMgr-qc

Giovanni Antinozzi , Guillermo Franco Abellán , Davide Sciotti , Matteo Martinelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords simulation-basedinferencehierarchicalBayesiandarksirensgravitationalwavecosmologyEinsteinTelescopeneuralratioestimationHubbleconstantpopulation
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

This paper asks whether simulation-based inference can replace the computationally expensive hierarchical likelihood for cosmological population inference with third-generation gravitational wave detectors. Using a mock one-year Einstein Telescope catalogue of roughly ten thousand dark siren binary black hole mergers, it trains an MNRE neural ratio estimator on $10^5$ forward simulations and shows that the resulting $(H_0, \Omega_m)$ posterior matches the hierarchical Bayesian posterior one-to-one. It then extends the same pipeline to jointly infer $H_0$ and $\Omega_m$ together with three star formation rate parameters at negligible additional cost, while the hierarchical approach would need a much more expensive higher-dimensional selection-function computation. The practical payoff is that SBI makes feasible the high-dimensional, large-catalogue population analyses that the Einstein Telescope era will require, while remaining amortized for rapid re-analysis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation (MNRE), a simulation-based inference algorithm that trains a binary classifier to estimate marginal posterior-to-prior ratios $r(x;\theta)$ by distinguishing jointly sampled (data, parameter) pairs from independently shuffled pairs. The data entering the network are compressed to a summary that combines the total number of detected events $N_{\rm obs}$ with a 2D soft histogram: events are hard-binned into five slices of fractional luminosity-distance uncertainty $\log_{10}(\sigma/dL)$, and within each slice soft-binned into 200 $\log_{10}(d_L)$ bins with Gaussian weights. This summary retains the per-event correlation between distance and distance error, which the paper shows is essential when astrophysical parameters are inferred jointly. The reference benchmark is the hierarchical Bayesian likelihood of Eq. (3.17), whose selection function $\xi(\theta)$ is estimated by importance-sampling a single reference injection set and rescaling signal-to-noise ratios as $\rho \propto 1/dL$.

What would settle it

Recompute the HBI selection function by running full injection campaigns at several off-reference cosmological parameter values, without the $\rho \propto 1/d_L$ rescaling, and compare the resulting HBI posterior to the SBI posterior; if the contours shift by more than the statistical uncertainty quoted in the paper, the SBI-HBI agreement is an artifact of the shared selection-function approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that, for a mock catalogue of order $10^4$ dark siren binary black hole mergers from one year of Einstein Telescope observation, Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation (MNRE) trained on $10^5$ forward simulations recovers the same two-dimensional posterior on the Hubble constant $H_0$ and matter density $\Omega_m$ as the full hierarchical Bayesian likelihood. The reported values from the hierarchical likelihood are $H_0 = 67.0 \pm 1.3$ km/s/Mpc and $\Omega_m = 0.32^{+0.021}_{-0.025}$, with the SBI contours reproducing the analytical ones essentially one-to-one and both recovering the injected fiducial values. The same trained pipeline, using the total event count plus a two-dimensional soft histogram of luminosity distance and fractional distance uncertainty, extends to a joint five-parameter inference that includes the star formation rate parameters $(z_m, a, b)$, recovering all injected values, while the hierarchical approach would need a substantially more expensive importance-sampling procedure to handle the added dimensions. This establishes, in a simplified but realistic proof-of-concept, that SBI is a scalable alternative for population inference in the Einstein Telescope era.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hierarchical Bayesian benchmark posterior is unbiased; in particular, its selection function is computed by importance sampling from one reference parameter set with the approximation that signal-to-noise ratio scales as $1/d_L$, so if that approximation is inaccurate the agreement between SBI and HBI would reflect a shared model error rather than independently validated inference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a one-year Einstein Telescope dark siren catalogue, the SBI pipeline yields cosmological constraints statistically indistinguishable from the hierarchical likelihood: $H_0 = 67.0 \pm 1.3$ km/s/Mpc and $\Omega_m = 0.32^{+0.021}_{-0.025}$.
  • Extending the inference to include the star formation rate parameters $(z_m, a, b)$ costs only a second set of $10^5$ simulations and retraining one network, with no change to the simulator or inference algorithm, whereas the same extension in HBI would require higher-dimensional importance sampling of the selection function.
  • Once trained, the ratio-estimation networks are amortized: posterior inference on a new catalogue takes seconds, enabling rapid re-analysis and empirical coverage diagnostics that would require hundreds of MCMC runs in the likelihood-based approach.
  • The close agreement validates the information content of the $N_{\rm obs}$ plus 2D soft histogram summary, showing that it retains the cosmological information encoded in the full catalogue of per-event distance measurements.
  • Empirical coverage tests show well-calibrated 1D marginal posteriors at the 1--3$\sigma$ level for all parameters in all three SBI analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A fully independent calculation of the selection function, without the $\rho \propto 1/dL$ rescaling, would be the cleanest test of whether the HBI benchmark itself is unbiased; if the approximation fails off-reference, the SBI-HBI agreement would show consistency between the two methods but not correctness of the recovered cosmology.
  • Because the paper fixes the black hole mass to a single $7\,M_\odot$ value, the distance-error model is simplified; relaxing to a mass spectrum would likely strengthen the relative case for SBI, since the HBI selection function would need even more expensive resampling.
  • The demonstrated degradation of the $(H_0, \Omega_m)$ contours when astrophysical parameters are marginalized implies that future Einstein Telescope forecasts that fix star formation parameters will overstate cosmological constraining power; joint inference should be the default.
  • In a real analysis where single-event likelihoods are non-analytic, the same summary can in principle be constructed from posterior samples rather than from the analytic Gaussian used here, which would test the method's robustness to realistic distance errors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a proof-of-concept comparison between hierarchical Bayesian inference (HBI) and simulation-based inference via marginal neural ratio estimation (SBI/MNRE) for dark-siren cosmology in the Einstein Telescope era. The authors generate a mock catalogue of O(10^4) binary black hole events using the darksirens pipeline, fix a flat Lambda-CDM cosmology and monochromatic black-hole masses, and infer (H0, Omega_m) both with the analytic hierarchical likelihood of Eq. (3.17) and with an MNRE network trained on 10^5 forward simulations. They report excellent visual agreement between the two posteriors, using either the number of observed events alone or the number plus a 2D soft histogram of (d_L, sigma/dL). They then extend SBI to a joint five-parameter inference including star-formation-rate parameters (z_m, a, b), validated by coverage tests and fiducial recovery, and compare the computational cost of the two approaches.

Significance. The paper is a useful methodological contribution to the GW population-inference literature. The HBI likelihood derivation in Sec. 3 follows the standard hierarchical Bayesian formalism and is internally consistent; the SBI pipeline is described in enough detail to reproduce; and the public code release, the detailed coverage tests in App. A, and the explicit timing breakdown in App. B are concrete strengths. If the claimed agreement is genuine, the paper demonstrates a scalable, amortized alternative to the explicit hierarchical likelihood for O(10^4)-event catalogues. However, the central agreement claim is only qualitative, and the five-parameter extension has no independent exact reference. The significance of the result therefore rests on a quantitative comparison that the manuscript does not currently provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Fig. 5] The central claim that 'the SBI posteriors reproduce the analytical contours essentially one-to-one' is supported only by visual overlay of the contours. The paper reports HBI values H0 = 67.0 +/- 1.3 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m = 0.32 +0.021/-0.025 but no corresponding SBI numbers and no quantitative agreement metric. I request the SBI means/credible intervals for both the Number-only and Number+Shape analyses, and a distance measure between the HBI and SBI posteriors (e.g., maximum mean discrepancy, Jensen-Shannon divergence, or overlap coefficient) with an estimate of its Monte Carlo uncertainty. Without this, the 'one-to-one' wording is not supported and a few-percent discrepancy would be invisible.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 6] The Conclusions call the hierarchical likelihood 'exact', but the implementation of the selection function xi(theta) in Sec. 3.2 uses importance sampling from a single reference parameter set and assumes rho proportional to 1/dL at fixed redshift (point 4). Please either quantify the accuracy of this approximation (e.g., effective sample size of the importance weights and a comparison against brute-force injections at several points on the theta grid) or replace 'exact' with 'analytic/approximate' throughout. This matters because the SBI pipeline applies the SNR cut inside the simulator; a disagreement between SBI and HBI would have been a direct test of the selection-function approximation, and the paper currently forgoes that test by only presenting overlapping contours.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 5] The sufficiency of the summary statistic (N_obs plus the 2D soft histogram) is inferred from the cosmology-only agreement, but for the five-parameter analysis there is no independent reference: coverage tests in App. A establish calibration, not accuracy or information retention. Please either validate the five-parameter inference against an approximate HBI run in a reduced setting, or explicitly state as a limitation that the five-parameter posterior is a demonstration of scalability rather than a validated equivalence, and discuss possible information loss from the fixed binning choices.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and App. B] The statement that SBI requires 'orders of magnitude less computation' should be qualified; the upfront CPU costs are comparable (about 370 CPU-hours for HBI versus about 175 CPU-hours for SBI simulation plus about 20 GPU-minutes of training), and the orders-of-magnitude advantage refers to the amortized per-analysis cost.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.9)] The Poisson probability is written with a proportionality sign, omitting the 1/N_obs! normalization. The omission is harmless for likelihood-ratio computations, but writing the normalized expression would be clearer.
  3. [Sec. 5] Please report the numeric SBI constraints for (H0, Omega_m) alongside the quoted HBI values, even in a sentence or table, to match the precision of the comparison claim.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The legend appears to repeat 'HBI' and 'SBI'; please clean up the label placement for readability.
  5. [Sec. 3.1, footnote] The statement that the fixed-mass assumption affects only realism, not validity, is too strong; ignoring the detector-frame chirp-mass information is a deliberate modelling choice that removes a potentially dominant source of cosmological information. Please explicitly frame this as a limitation of the mock catalogue.
  6. [Sec. 4.1] The sentence reporting that a 1D soft histogram fails to provide sufficient constraining power for the cosmology-plus-astrophysics case is useful, but consider moving the verification details to an appendix or adding a figure, since it is part of the motivation for the 2D summary statistic.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the SBI and HBI pipelines are independently implemented and the reported agreement is a consistency check, not a reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that MNRE-based SBI reproduces the hierarchical Bayesian posteriors for (H0, Omega_m) from a mock ET dark-siren catalogue. This is not circular in the defined sense: the SBI posterior is trained exclusively on forward simulations from the darksirens simulator, while the HBI posterior is computed from the analytic hierarchical likelihood of Eq. (3.17). Neither method fits the other's output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The HBI benchmark is derived from the stated generative model, and the SBI network is a separate, likelihood-free implementation of the same model, so agreement is a nontrivial numerical cross-check. The main caveat is that both the mock observed catalogue and the SBI training simulations are produced by the same darksirens pipeline, as stated in Sec. 2.2: 'In the following, this whole pipeline is used both to generate our simulated observed dataset and to generate the simulations required for the SBI approach.' This limits the external validity of the validation, since agreement cannot test the astrophysical model itself, but it is an internal-consistency limitation rather than a self-definitional or fitted-input circularity. Self-citations to Refs. [79], [80], [63], and [97] provide the public forward-modelling code, the number-counts degeneracy result, and SBI methodology, but the relevant equations and figures are presented in the paper itself, and the citations are not used to forbid alternatives or to import an unverified uniqueness claim. The approximation rho proportional to 1/dL in the HBI selection-function estimate (Sec. 3.2, point 4) is a potential source of shared model error, but the SBI pipeline applies the SNR cut directly in the simulator, so the SBI-HBI comparison could in principle expose such an error; the paper simply does not exploit that diagnostic. Overall, no specific step reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is essentially zero, with a minor deduction only for the self-contained, same-simulator validation design.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on standard Bayesian statistics and a simplified forward model for ET dark sirens. The main domain assumptions (SFR-proportional merger rate, monochromatic BH mass, Gaussian distance errors with sigma=2dL/rho, SNR threshold 12) are stated explicitly and shared by both methods. The joint analysis introduces three SFR parameters as free parameters with wide priors. The summary-statistic binning choices (N_frac=5, N_bin=200) are hand-tuned. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • a = inferred in joint analysis; prior [1.66, 3.08], fiducial 2.37
    Shape parameter of the star formation rate density (Eq. 2.7); fixed in cosmology-only analysis, inferred in joint analysis.
  • b = inferred in joint analysis; prior [1.26, 2.34], fiducial 1.8
    Shape parameter of the star formation rate density (Eq. 2.7); inferred in joint analysis.
  • z_m = inferred in joint analysis; prior [1.4, 2.6], fiducial 2.0
    Peak redshift of the star formation rate density (Eq. 2.7); inferred in joint analysis.
  • N_frac = 5
    Number of hard bins in fractional distance uncertainty; chosen by trial-and-error (footnote 15) as part of the summary statistic.
  • N_bin = 200
    Number of soft bins in log10(d_L/Mpc); chosen by trial-and-error (footnote 15).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Flat LambdaCDM cosmology with luminosity distance from standard Friedmann equations (Eqs. 2.5-2.6)
    Background cosmology used to convert redshifts into luminosity distances in both HBI and SBI pipelines.
  • domain assumption Merger rate density R(z) proportional to the star formation rate density psi_SFR(z) with the functional form of Nagamine et al. 2003 (Eq. 2.7)
    Population-synthesis modelling choice for the redshift distribution of binary black hole mergers, stated in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Per-event luminosity distance uncertainty sigma_i = 2 d_L / rho_i (Eq. 2.8) and Gaussian scatter on d_L (Sec. 2.2)
    Approximate noise model used for mock catalogue generation, for the SBI simulator, and for the HBI likelihood (Eq. 3.25).
  • domain assumption Detection threshold rho_thr = 12 with network SNR from the ET-D triangular sensitivity (Sec. 2.2)
    Defines detectable events and enters the selection function and the SBI simulator.
  • domain assumption Monochromatic black hole mass M_BH = 7 M_sun (Sec. 2.1)
    Simplification that fixes all masses, used to compute SNRs and distance errors; the paper states the source-frame mass is not propagated into the inference stage.
  • ad hoc to paper SNR scales as rho proportional to 1/dL for fixed masses and angles (Sec. 3.2, point 4)
    Approximation used in the HBI importance resampling to rescale SNRs across cosmological parameter space; the SBI simulator computes SNRs directly.
  • standard math Standard Bayesian probability rules and the hierarchical likelihood derivation following Mandel et al. 2019 and Vitale et al. 2020 (Eqs. 3.1-3.11)
    Mathematical framework for the HBI likelihood.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology in the Einstein Telescope era: comparing traditional and simulation-based methods for population inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WADEC3QI

@misc{pith2026260804005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology in the Einstein Telescope era: comparing traditional and simulation-based methods for population inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WADEC3QI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04005}
}
abstract

The next generation of gravitational wave detectors, such as the Einstein Telescope (ET), will observe orders of magnitude more binary black hole mergers than current facilities. Most of these events will lack an electromagnetic counterpart, also known as dark siren events, yet will still enable percent-level cosmological constraints. However, the likelihood traditionally used in Hierarchical Bayesian Inference (HBI) for population-level analyses becomes computationally prohibitive as the size of dark siren catalogues and population parameters grow. In this work we compare HBI against simulation-based inference (SBI) as a scalable alternative for cosmological population inference in the ET era. Studying a proof-of-concept example of a mock ET inference, we build a catalogue of $O(10^4)$ binary black hole events, then perform inference on the Hubble constant $H_0$ and matter density $\Omega_m$ in a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, using both a hierarchical analytical likelihood and Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation (MNRE). We find excellent agreement between the two approaches, with SBI reproducing the HBI posteriors to high accuracy, while requiring orders of magnitude less computation once the simulation and training cost is amortized. We further demonstrate that SBI extends straightforwardly to a joint cosmology-plus-astrophysics analysis, simultaneously constraining $(H_0,\Omega_m)$ together with the parameters of the star formation rate density, at negligible additional cost compared to the significant increase in complexity such an extension would require within the HBI framework. Our results indicate that SBI is a promising and scalable tool for population inference with third-generation GW detectors.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al.,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]. [39]CosmoVerse Networkcollaboration,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundam...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [40]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press (3, 2018). [41]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRALcollaboration,Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Astrophys. J. Lett.848(2017) L13 [1710.05834]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [42]

    Ezquiaga and M

    J.M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui,Dark Energy After GW170817: Dead Ends and the Road Ahead,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 251304 [1710.05901]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [43]

    Creminelli and F

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi,Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A,Phys. Rev. Lett.119(2017) 251302 [1710.05877]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [44]

    Taylor, J.R

    S.R. Taylor, J.R. Gair and I. Mandel,Hubble without the Hubble: Cosmology using advanced gravitational-wave detectors alone,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 023535 [1108.5161]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [45]

    W.M. Farr, M. Fishbach, J. Ye and D. Holz,A Future Percent-Level Measurement of the Hubble Expansion at Redshift 0.8 With Advanced LIGO,Astrophys. J. Lett.883(2019) L42 [1908.09084]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [46]

    Mastrogiovanni, K

    S. Mastrogiovanni, K. Leyde, C. Karathanasis, E. Chassande-Mottin, D.A. Steer, J. Gair et al.,On the importance of source population models for gravitational-wave cosmology,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 062009 [2103.14663]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [47]

    Gravitational wave cosmology : an introduction

    G. Pierra and S. Mastrogiovanni,Gravitational wave cosmology : an introduction, 2507.10597

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 54 references
  1. [48]

    Dupletsa et al.,Radio sirens: inferringH 0 with binary black holes and neutral hydrogen in the era of the Einstein Telescope and the SKA Observatory,2605.12606

    U. Dupletsa et al.,Radio sirens: inferringH 0 with binary black holes and neutral hydrogen in the era of the Einstein Telescope and the SKA Observatory,2605.12606

    arXiv

  2. [49]

    Del Pozzo, T.G.F

    W. Del Pozzo, T.G.F. Li and C. Messenger,Cosmological inference using only gravitational wave observations of binary neutron stars,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 043502 [1506.06590]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [50]

    Mandel, W.M

    I. Mandel, W.M. Farr and J.R. Gair,Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486(2019) 1086 [1809.02063]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [51]

    Vitale, D

    S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W.M. Farr and S.R. Taylor,Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects,2007.05579

    2007 arXiv

  5. [52]

    Talbot and J

    C. Talbot and J. Golomb,Growing pains: understanding the impact of likelihood uncertainty on hierarchical Bayesian inference for gravitational-wave astronomy,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(2023) 3495 [2304.06138]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [53]

    Gair et al.,The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Catalog Approach for Dark Siren Gravitational-wave Cosmology,Astron

    J.R. Gair et al.,The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Catalog Approach for Dark Siren Gravitational-wave Cosmology,Astron. J.166(2023) 22 [2212.08694]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [54]

    Tagliazucchi, M

    M. Tagliazucchi, M. Moresco, A. Agapito, M. Mancarella, S. Ferraiuolo, S. Mastrogiovanni et al.,Pushing spectral siren cosmology into the third-generation era: a blinded mock data challenge,Astron. Astrophys.711(2026) A120 [2602.17756]

    2026 arXiv

  8. [55]

    Cranmer, J

    K. Cranmer, J. Brehmer and G. Louppe,The frontier of simulation-based inference,Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.117(2020) 30055 [1911.01429]. – 24 – [56]SimBIGcollaboration,Field-level simulation-based inference of galaxy clustering with convolutional neural networks,Phys. Rev. D109(2024...

    2020 arXiv

  9. [58]

    von Wietersheim-Kramsta, K

    M. von Wietersheim-Kramsta, K. Lin, N. Tessore, B. Joachimi, A. Loureiro, R. Reischke et al.,KiDS-SBI: Simulation-based inference analysis of KiDS-1000 cosmic shear,Astron. Astrophys.694(2025) A223 [2404.15402]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [59]

    Novaes, L

    C.P. Novaes, L. Thiele, J. Armijo, S. Cheng, J.A. Cowell, G.A. Marques et al.,Cosmology from HSC Y1 weak lensing data with combined higher-order statistics and simulation-based inference,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 083510 [2409.01301]. [60]LSST Dark Energy Sciencecollaboration,Simul...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [61]

    Nguyen, F

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

    2024 arXiv

  12. [62]

    Zubeldia, B

    ´I. Zubeldia, B. Bolliet, A. Challinor and W. Handley,Extracting cosmological information from the abundance of galaxy clusters with simulation-based inference,Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) 083536 [2504.10230]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [63]

    Franco Abell´ an, G.C

    G. Franco Abell´ an, G.C. Herrera, M. Martinelli, O. Savchenko, D. Sciotti and C. Weniger, Fast likelihood-free inference in the LSS Stage IV era,JCAP11(2024) 057 [2403.14750]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [64]

    Savchenko, G

    O. Savchenko, G. Franco Abell´ an, F. List, N. Anau Montel and C. Weniger,Fast Sampling of Cosmological Initial Conditions with Gaussian Neural Posterior Estimation,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.549(2026) stag977 [2502.03139]

    2026 arXiv

  15. [65]

    Leyde, S.R

    K. Leyde, S.R. Green, A. Toubiana and J. Gair,Gravitational wave populations and cosmology with neural posterior estimation,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 064056 [2311.12093]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [66]

    Leyde, S.R

    K. Leyde, S.R. Green, M. Dax, M. Mould, C.M. Fabbri and J. Gair,End-to-End Population Inference from Gravitational-Wave Strain using Transformers,2605.11274

    arXiv

  17. [67]

    Santoliquido, M

    F. Santoliquido, M. Mapelli, M.C. Artale and L. Boco,Modelling the host galaxies of binary compact object mergers with observational scaling relations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.516 (2022) 3297 [2205.05099]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [68]

    Cranmer, J

    K. Cranmer, J. Pavez and G. Louppe,Approximating Likelihood Ratios with Calibrated Discriminative Classifiers,1506.02169

    arXiv

  19. [69]

    Miller, A

    B.K. Miller, A. Cole, P. Forr´ e, G. Louppe and C. Weniger,Truncated Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation, in35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 7, 2021, DOI [2107.01214]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [70]

    Papamakarios and I

    G. Papamakarios and I. Murray,Fastϵ-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1028–1036, Dec., 2016

    2016

  21. [71]

    Jeffrey and B.D

    N. Jeffrey and B.D. Wandelt,Solving high-dimensional parameter inference: marginal posterior densities & Moment Networks, in34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 11, 2020 [2011.05991]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [72]

    Alsing, B

    J. Alsing, B. Wandelt and S. Feeney,Massive optimal data compression and density estimation for scalable, likelihood-free inference in cosmology,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 477(2018) 2874 [1801.01497]. – 25 –

    2018 arXiv

  23. [73]

    Alsing, T

    J. Alsing, T. Charnock, S. Feeney and B. Wandelt,Fast likelihood-free cosmology with neural density estimators and active learning,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488(2019) 4440 [1903.00007]. [74]LISAcollaboration,LISA Definition Study Report,2402.07571

    2019 arXiv

  24. [75]

    Ajith et al.,The Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna: mission studies and science case, JCAP01(2025) 108 [2404.09181]

    P. Ajith et al.,The Lunar Gravitational-wave Antenna: mission studies and science case, JCAP01(2025) 108 [2404.09181]

    2025

  25. [76]

    Evans et al.,A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,2109.09882

    M. Evans et al.,A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,2109.09882. [77]ETcollaboration,Science Case for the Einstein Telescope,JCAP03(2020) 050 [1912.02622]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [78]

    Branchesi et al.,Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP07(2023) 068 [2303.15923]

    M. Branchesi et al.,Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP07(2023) 068 [2303.15923]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [79]

    Martinelli, F

    M. Martinelli, F. Scarcella, N.B. Hogg, B.J. Kavanagh, D. Gaggero and P. Fleury,Dancing in the dark: detecting a population of distant primordial black holes,JCAP08(2022) 006 [2205.02639]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [80]

    Antinozzi, M

    G. Antinozzi, M. Martinelli and R. Maoli,Forecast cosmological constraints from the number counts of Gravitational Waves events,JCAP05(2024) 017 [2312.12217]. [81]LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration,Supplement: The Rate of Binary Black Hole Mergers Inferred from Advanced LIGO ...

    2024 arXiv

  29. [83]

    Nagamine, V

    K. Nagamine, V. Springel and L. Hernquist,Abundance of damped Lyman-alpha absorbers in cosmological SPH simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.348(2004) 421 [astro-ph/0302187]

    2004 arXiv

  30. [84]

    Cai and T

    R.-G. Cai and T. Yang,Estimating cosmological parameters by the simulated data of gravitational waves from the Einstein Telescope,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 044024 [1608.08008]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [85]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,Astrophys. J.538(2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    2000 arXiv

  32. [86]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall and A. Challinor,CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology,JCAP04(2012) 027 [1201.3654]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [87]

    A. Nitz, I. Harry, D. Brown, C.M. Biwer, J. Willis, T.D. Canton et al.,gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of pycbc,

  34. [88]

    S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. P¨ urrer, F. Ohme, X.J. Forteza et al.,Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. I. New numerical waveforms and anatomy of the signal,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 044006 [1508.07250]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [89]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. P¨ urrer, X.J. Forteza et al.,Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. II. A phenomenological model for the advanced detector era,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 044007 [1508.07253]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [90]

    Zheng, M

    Y. Zheng, M. Cavagli` a, R. Quitzow-James and K. Mogushi,A needle in (many) haystacks: Using the false alarm rate to sift gravitational waves from noise,Significance18(2021) 22

    2021

  37. [91]

    Lueckmann, J

    J.-M. Lueckmann, J. Boelts, D.S. Greenberg, P.J. Gon¸ calves and J.H. Macke,Benchmarking simulation-based inference, inProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), pp. 343–351, PMLR, 2021 [2101.04653]. – 26 –

    2021 arXiv

  38. [92]

    Cole, B.K

    A. Cole, B.K. Miller, S.J. Witte, M.X. Cai, M.W. Grootes, F. Nattino et al.,Fast and credible likelihood-free cosmology with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation,JCAP09(2022) 004 [2111.08030]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [93]

    Montel, A

    N.A. Montel, A. Coogan, C. Correa, K. Karchev and C. Weniger,Estimating the warm dark matter mass from strong lensing images with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.518(2022) 2746 [2205.09126]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [94]

    Saxena, A

    A. Saxena, A. Cole, S. Gazagnes, P.D. Meerburg, C. Weniger and S.J. Witte,Constraining the X-ray heating and reionization using 21-cm power spectra with Marginal Neural Ratio Estimation,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525(2023) 6097 [2303.07339]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [95]

    Alvey, M

    J. Alvey, M. Gerdes and C. Weniger,Albatross: a scalable simulation-based inference pipeline for analysing stellar streams in the Milky Way,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525(2023) 3662 [2304.02032]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [96]

    Bhardwaj, J

    U. Bhardwaj, J. Alvey, B.K. Miller, S. Nissanke and C. Weniger,Sequential simulation-based inference for gravitational wave signals,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 042004 [2304.02035]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [97]

    Franco Abell´ an, N

    G. Franco Abell´ an, N. Anau Montel, O. Savchenko and C. Weniger,How to embed any likelihood into simulation-based inference: Application to Planck and stage IV galaxy surveys and dynamical dark energy,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 10 [2507.22990]

    2025

  44. [98]

    Akiba, S

    T. Akiba, S. Sano, T. Yanase, T. Ohta and M. Koyama,Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework,1907.10902. [99]DESIcollaboration,DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 083515 [2...

    2025 arXiv

  45. [100]

    Hermans, A

    J. Hermans, A. Delaunoy, F. Rozet, A. Wehenkel, V. Begy and G. Louppe,A Trust Crisis In Simulation-Based Inference? Your Posterior Approximations Can Be Unfaithful,2110.06581

    arXiv

  46. [101]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M.J. Johnson, Y. Katariya, C. Leary et al.,JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018. – 27 –

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.