Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Boosting galaxy clustering analyses with non-perturbative modelling of redshift-space distortions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that treating redshift-space distortion damping non-perturbatively extends unbiased galaxy-clustering fits from 0.2 to 0.35 h/Mpc for the power spectrum and from 0.1 to 0.14 h/Mpc for the bispectrum, cutting joint…

desk verdict Solid, useful model comparison with a credible power-spectrum win for VDG∞; the bispectrum extension is real but rests on an unproven functional form, and the paper's own counterterm test shows most of the gain can be captured perturbatively. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18597 v1 pith:WZYL6OE4 submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.CO

Alexander Eggemeier , Nanoom Lee , Román Scoccimarro , Benjamin Camacho-Quevedo , Andrea Pezzotta , Martin Crocce , Ariel G. Sánchez This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords redshift-spacedistortionsgalaxyclusteringpowerspectrummultipolesbispectrumvelocitydifferencegeneratingfunctionfingersofGodeffectivefieldtheorylarge-scalestructurecosmologicalparameterconstraints
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's central claim is that the standard EFT analysis of galaxy clustering breaks down on unexpectedly large scales because it expands the redshift-space mapping, not the gravitational dynamics. Its proposed model, VDG$\infty$, keeps the velocity difference generating function—the factor responsible for finger-of-God suppression—as a non-perturbative damping function and expands only the remaining correlators. On synthetic luminous-red-galaxy catalogues with Stage-IV survey precision, this model returns unbiased cosmological parameters up to $k_{\max}=0.35\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for the one-loop power spectrum and $0.14\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for the tree-level bispectrum, compared with about $0.2$ and $0.1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for the EFT. The result is 20–40% smaller uncertainties on $h$, $\omega_c$, and $A_s$ from power spectrum multipoles alone, and 25–50% smaller in joint power-spectrum plus bispectrum fits. The paper also traces the EFT bispectrum failure to its bispectrum counterterms and shows that a counterterm derived from the same damping expansion recovers most of the gain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the velocity difference generating function (VDG), $W(\lambda,\mathbf{r})=\langle e^{\lambda\Delta u_z}\rangle$, the moment-generating function of line-of-sight pairwise velocities whose logarithm generates all velocity-difference cumulants. The model approximates it by its infinite-separation limit, $W^P_\infty(\lambda)$ for the power spectrum and $W^B_\infty(\lambda_{123})$ for the bispectrum, which act as fingers-of-God damping factors controlled by the linear velocity dispersion $\sigma_v^2$ and a free kurtosis parameter $a_{\mathrm{vir}}$. The cumulant expansion factors the redshift-space correlator into this non-perturbative damping factor times perturbatively expanded correlators, with a one-loop correction $\Delta P(k)$ that avoids double-counting the velocity dispersion. Stochastic contributions are not multiplied by the damping factor; instead the zero-lag limit of the VDG generates a new line-of-sight stochastic term. The machinery also includes leading-order counterterms only for the VDG$\infty$ power spectrum, a VDG-consistent bispectrum counterterm, and validated approximations for geometric projection and discrete bin-average effects that make the joint bispectrum likelihood fast.

What would settle it

Measure the three-point velocity-difference generating function at large pair separations directly in a high-resolution cosmological N-body simulation for the same triangle configurations and line-of-sight angles used here, up to $k_{\max}=0.14\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, and replace the paper's bispectrum damping formula by the measured function in the model; if $h$, $\omega_c$, and $A_s$ shift by more than about $1\sigma$, the central claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the scale at which redshift-space EFT fits become biased is set by the perturbative expansion of the redshift-space mapping, and that this expansion can be avoided by factorising the exact cumulant expansion of the redshift-space density field. In the VDG$\infty$ model the velocity difference generating function is evaluated in its infinite-separation limit, giving a physically motivated damping factor $W^P_\infty(k)$ for the power spectrum and $W^B_\infty(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ for the bispectrum, with one additional free parameter, $a_{\mathrm{vir}}$, while stochastic terms remain undamped and gain a line-of-sight dependent contribution. Against mean measurements from two simulated luminous-red-galaxy populations with projected Stage-IV covariances, the model stays within 68% bias thresholds up to $k_{\max}=0.35\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for power spectrum multipoles and $0.14\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for bispectrum multipoles, where the EFT crosses the threshold at roughly $0.2$ and $0.1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. The paper further shows that the EFT bispectrum bias beyond $k_{\max}\approx0.1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ originates in the particular bispectrum counterterm prescription used by the EFT, and that a counterterm obtained by expanding the VDG damping reproduces the VDG$\infty$ performance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three-point damping formula for the bispectrum faithfully describes the velocity-difference generating function for the triangle shapes and scales used; the paper itself notes this formula is not a rigorous result, and if it fails for those configurations the claimed joint-fit gains shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stage-IV full-shape analyses of LRG-like samples can push power-spectrum fits to $k_{\max}=0.35\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ and bispectrum fits to $0.14\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ without the $>1\sigma$ parameter bias that the EFT develops, yielding 20–40% tighter $h$, $\omega_c$, and $A_s$ uncertainties from power spectrum multipoles alone.
  • The EFT power-spectrum breakdown is driven by the quadrupole and hexadecapole, meaning the failure is in the RSD mapping rather than in monopole dynamics or galaxy bias; simply cutting the quadrupole at $0.2\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ does not recover the VDG$\infty$ constraining power.
  • The EFT bispectrum breakdown is driven by its counterterm prescription; a counterterm obtained from a low-$k$ expansion of the VDG damping removes most of the bias, confirming the origin of the failure.
  • Because the VDG$\infty$ counterterms stay consistent with zero with no running with $k_{\max}$, the model is less exposed to prior-volume projection effects in high-dimensional fits.
  • The full model suite evaluates the joint power-spectrum plus bispectrum likelihood in $\mathcal{O}(10)$ ms, making large Stage-IV MCMC analyses practical.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the three-point damping formula is validated for a wider set of triangle shapes, the same factorisation should carry over to one-loop bispectrum models and higher-order correlation functions, where the perturbative RSD expansion is even more costly.
  • Beyond the paper: the no-damping-of-stochastic-terms result implies that earlier damping-based redshift-space models that damped shot-noise terms carry a scale-dependent systematic; reanalysing past full-shape data with undamped stochastic terms may shift nuisance and possibly cosmological posteriors.
  • Beyond the paper: the cleanest test of the mechanism is to measure the three-point velocity difference generating function at infinite separation in high-resolution simulations, since the paper explicitly relies on a non-rigorous formula for this quantity.
  • Beyond the paper: for emission-line galaxies and higher-redshift samples, where small-scale velocities are larger relative to survey resolution, the present validation across two LRG-like samples may not transfer directly; the model could need a scale-dependent $a_{\mathrm{vir}}$ or a nonzero-lag 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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an alternative to the standard EFT-of-LSS treatment of redshift-space distortions, in which the velocity-difference generating function (VDG) is kept non-perturbative and modelled by its infinite-separation limit (the "VDG∞" model), while galaxy bias, stochasticity, and counterterms are treated as in the EFT. The model is applied to the power-spectrum multipoles and tree-level bispectrum multipoles measured from synthetic BOSS CMASS and LOWZ catalogues, with covariances rescaled to Stage-IV-like survey volumes. The authors report that VDG∞ extends the unbiased-analysis range from roughly k_max = 0.2 to 0.35 h/Mpc for the one-loop power spectrum and from 0.1 to 0.14 h/Mpc for the tree-level bispectrum, with 20–40% and 25–50% uncertainty reductions relative to the EFT. The paper also validates several computational approximations (AP expansion, IR resummation, bispectrum binning/discreteness) and releases the models in the public COMET code.

Significance. If the VDG∞ bispectrum damping form is validated, the result is practically significant: Stage-IV full-shape analyses could use smaller scales than the standard EFT without incurring parameter bias. The paper is methodologically careful in several respects: it uses 300 independent simulation realisations, computes per-realisation p-values as a goodness-of-fit metric, validates analytical Gaussian covariances against numerical estimates, checks projection and prior effects, and provides quantitative FoB/FoM/tension metrics. The computational approximations (AP Taylor expansion, fixed-μ IR resummation, hybrid discreteness treatment) are tested against exact evaluations and appear to introduce sub-σ errors. The public release of the extended COMET package is a further strength. However, the central bispectrum claim rests on a functional form that the paper itself describes as "not a rigorous result" and that is supported only by an unpublished PhD thesis; this missing support is load-bearing for the headline extension to k_B = 0.14 h/Mpc.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II A 3, Eq. (28)] The bispectrum damping function W_B∞ is the ingredient that extends the tree-level bispectrum validity from k_B,max = 0.1 to 0.14 h/Mpc (Secs. VI B and VII), but the text immediately states that Eq. (28) "is not a rigorous result" and cites only a PhD thesis [64]. The functional form (1 − λ²a_vir²)^(−3/2) times a Gaussian fixes both the triangle-shape and LOS dependence of the damping; if this shape is inaccurate for the configurations that dominate the k_B,max = 0.14 h/Mpc data vector, the reported FoB and FoM gains are properties of this particular ansatz fitted to two HOD-based mocks rather than generic consequences of non-perturbative RSD modelling. I request a direct measurement of the three-point VDG from the Minerva simulations (or another N-body suite) for the triangle bins used in this analysis, or an explicit numerical validation of Eq. (28) against the rigorous resummation of [64], before the headline bispectrum claim is accepted.
  2. [§VI B 3, Fig. 16] Figure 16 shows that an EFT variant with the VDG-consistent counterterm cB_nlo (Eq. 54) already reduces the FoB to values "only slightly larger" than the VDG∞ model. This indicates that most of the improvement over the default EFT prescription (Eq. 53) comes from using a counterterm that originates from an expansion of the VDG, not from the specific non-perturbative form of Eq. (28). The paper should quantify the residual gain of VDG∞ over the EFT+cB_nlo variant at fixed effective parameter count and state explicitly which fraction of the abstract's 25–50% uncertainty reduction is attributable to the non-perturbative damping itself rather than to the improved counterterm prescription.
  3. [§IV B, Table II and §VI B 4] The headline FoM comparison is made between models with different numbers of free parameters: in joint power-spectrum–bispectrum fits the default EFT has 14 nuisance parameters, the cB_nlo variant has 13, and VDG∞ has 12 (Table II). A model with fewer unconstrained nuisance parameters will generically yield a larger FoM even if the physical predictions coincide, so part of the reported uncertainty reduction may be a parameter-count effect. The paper should report an information-criterion or otherwise adjusted comparison (e.g., AIC/DIC, or FoM at fixed effective parameter count) to separate the benefit of the RSD modelling from the benefit of a more parsimonious nuisance sector.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§V A] There are typographical errors: "warrented" should be "warranted" and "qadrupole" should be "quadrupole" in the discussion of Fig. 3 and the surrounding text.
  2. [§II A 3, Eq. (25) and footnote 5] The derivation of the two-point VDG parametrisation and the treatment of the remaining cumulant-expansion terms are deferred to an unpublished manuscript [48]; since these are central to the model, adding a concise derivation or an appendix would make the paper self-contained.
  3. [§II C 2, footnote 6] The statement that "a more rigorous treatment of the VDG including shell-crossing does not change these conclusions" is presented without a supporting argument or reference; either provide the argument or mark this as a limitation of the present derivation.
  4. [§VI A 1] The statement that the VDG∞ model demonstrates "an improvement by a factor 2 or more" at the maximum scale cuts should specify whether this refers to the FoM ratio and at which exact k_max values the comparison is made, since the FoM values in Fig. 7 are shown only in arbitrary units.
  5. [§V C] In the validation of the hybrid discreteness approximation, the text says the maximum differences are 0.1σ and 0.24σ for the monopole and quadrupole respectively; it would be helpful to state explicitly that these values are evaluated after rebinning into ¯k bins, since the caption of Fig. 5 indicates that the per-triangle scatter can be larger.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline claims are evaluated by fitting both models to external Minerva mock data, and the VDG damping form is an adopted phenomenological input, not a quantity derived from the claims themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical model-comparison statements, not derivations of a target constant from an input. The VDG∞ and EFT models are both fitted to the same external mock data vectors (Minerva HOD catalogues), and performance is judged by whether the fitted cosmological parameters recover the known fiducial values of those simulations (FoB, p-value, FoM). This provides an external benchmark: the claimed extended validity ranges (0.2 to 0.35 h/Mpc for the power spectrum, 0.1 to 0.14 h/Mpc for the bispectrum) are properties of the fitted models on those mocks, not consequences of a parameter renamed as a prediction. The free parameter avir is fitted, but it is not the quantity being predicted; the same is true of the EFT counterterms, and the paper explicitly matches parameter counts between variants. The damping functions W_P∞ and W_B∞ (Eqs. 25 and 28) are inputs to the model: W_P∞ is traced to a resummation argument in earlier work, and the paper itself states that Eq. (28) 'is not a rigorous result' and is supported by a thesis [64]. That is a missing-support or validation concern, not a circular reduction: the bispectrum damping form is not defined in terms of the claimed outcome, nor is the outcome fitted from it. The self-citations [15], [48], and [64] are non-independent support for the functional form, but the decisive evidence in the paper is the direct comparison against simulation data, which would stand even if the damping form had been justified purely phenomenologically. No equation in the paper reduces to an earlier input by construction, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. The admitted lack of a rigorous derivation of W_B∞ is appropriately flagged as a limitation, but it does not make the model comparison circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model rests on the VDG parametrization, which is motivated by prior work by the same research group rather than derived in this paper; the bispectrum variant is explicitly non-rigorous, and several numerical approximations (p=7/4, beta, mu=0.6) are tuned. No new physical entities such as new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • avir = fitted per MCMC analysis; values depend on sample and scale cut (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 12)
    Controls the kurtosis and non-Gaussianity of the VDG damping function. It is the key free parameter of the VDG-infinity model and is fitted to the mock data, so part of the improved fit comes from this flexibility.
  • Galaxy bias, counterterm, and stochastic parameters (b1, b2, gamma2, c0, c2, c4, N0P, N2,0P, N2,2P, M0B, N0B; plus… = jointly fitted in MCMC; posteriors shown in Sec. VI
    Standard EFT nuisance parameters that absorb small-scale physics and galaxy bias. They are part of both the EFT and VDG-infinity models and are needed for the comparison.
  • Exponent p and beta interpolator in Eq. (84) = p=7/4; beta built from grid fits over sigma_v and avir
    The bispectrum VDG damping is approximated by a power-law function with exponent p=7/4, and the coefficient beta is fitted to match the exact model on a dense grid. This is a numerical approximation chosen to speed up the likelihood, not a physical parameter.
  • mu = 0.6 for bispectrum IR resummation = 0.6
    The line-of-sight angle mu is fixed to 0.6 in the bispectrum infrared resummation approximation, chosen by minimizing the difference between approximate and exact computations (Sec. V B).
  • Infrared resummation cutoff ks = 0.14 Mpc^-1
    Fixed intermediate scale separating long and short modes in the IR resummation integrals (Eq. 20), adopted from ref. [57]. It is not fitted to the data in this paper.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The VDG in the infinite separation limit has the form of Eq. (25), obtained by resumming quadratic non-linearities and verified against simulations in ref. [48].
    The derivation is not reproduced in this paper; it is attributed to a published paper by one of the authors and an unpublished manuscript [48].
  • ad hoc to paper The three-point VDG at infinity is given by Eq. (28), which the paper states 'is not a rigorous result' but matches the rigorous resummation calculation at all scales of interest [64].
    The bispectrum damping function is a simple phenomenological expression whose validity is assumed for the triangle configurations used in the analysis.
  • domain assumption Stochastic contributions to the power spectrum and bispectrum are not damped by the FoG factor; the zero-lag limits of the VDG follow Eqs. (43)-(44) and (47)-(48).
    The zero-lag limits are derived from the VDG definitions, but the claim that a rigorous shell-crossing treatment does not change the conclusion is only stated in footnote 6 without a proof.
  • domain assumption The analytic Gaussian covariances, with a non-linear model for the power spectrum multipoles, accurately represent the measurement uncertainties of the mock data.
    Validated against numerical covariances in Sec. III C; power spectrum agreement is good and bispectrum differences stay below about 20 percent for most entries.
  • domain assumption The Alcock-Paczynski Taylor expansion to linear order and the hybrid binning/discreteness scheme are accurate within the adopted scale cuts and measurement uncertainties.
    Validated in Secs. V A and V C; the paper reports differences below 0.1-0.24 sigma for the relevant configurations, supporting the use of these approximations.
  • domain assumption The coevolution relation for the third-order bias parameter gamma21, Eq. (64), fixes its value in terms of b1 and gamma2 for all models.
    Adopted from ref. [71] and checked against simulations in ref. [22]; it is a standard but nontrivial assumption that reduces the bias parameter space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosting galaxy clustering analyses with non-perturbative modelling of redshift-space distortions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WZYL6OE4

@misc{pith2026250118597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosting galaxy clustering analyses with non-perturbative modelling of redshift-space distortions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WZYL6OE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18597}
}
abstract

Redshift-space distortions (RSD), caused by the peculiar velocities of galaxies, are a key modelling challenge in galaxy clustering analyses, limiting the scales from which cosmological information can be reliably extracted. Unlike dynamical or galaxy bias effects, RSD imprint features that are sensitive to non-linearities across all scales. Yet, no distinction between these effects is made by the state-of-the-art analytical approach - the effective field theory (EFT) - which applies the same perturbative expansion to each of them. This paper explores an alternative approach, where the non-perturbative nature of RSD is partially preserved, and compares its effectiveness against the EFT in analysing power spectrum and bispectrum multipoles from synthetic samples of luminous red galaxies, using the projected sensitivity of a Stage-IV galaxy survey. Our results demonstrate that this distinct treatment of RSD improves the robustness of model predictions for both statistics, extending the validity range of the EFT from approximately $0.2\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ to $0.35\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for the one-loop power spectrum and from $0.1\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ to $0.14\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for the tree-level bispectrum. This leads to a significant enhancement in the precision of cosmological parameter constraints, with uncertainties on the Hubble rate, matter density, and scalar amplitude of fluctuations reduced by $20$-$40\,\%$ for the power spectrum multipoles alone compared to the EFT, and by $25$-$50\,\%$ for joint analyses with the bispectrum. The RSD treatment proposed here may thus play a crucial role in maximising the scientific return of current and future galaxy surveys. To support this advancement, all models for the power spectrum and bispectrum used in this work are made available through an extended version of the Python package COMET.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The VDG in the infinite separation limit, which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of measured auto- and cross-covariances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Difference between the approximate and exact treat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Demonstration of the accuracy of expanding the AP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Impact of different approximations for binning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Left: performance metrics derived from MCMC analyses of the power spectrum multipoles using the EFT and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Performance metrics of the EFT and VDG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. MAP cosmological parameters (stars) vs. 68 % cred [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison of performance metrics for the EFT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of performance metrics using different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Constraints on the redshift-space counterterms for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig. 7, but for the joint analysis of the power spectrum and bispectrum. All quantities are shown as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Posterior constraints for the CMASS sample, shown for a subset of the fitted model parameters (fiducial values for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Same performance metrics as in Fig. 14, for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Performance metrics for joint power spectrum and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Inverse relative uncertainties on the three cosmological parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Zel'dovich smearing approximation of the BAO feature for model-agnostic cosmological inference

    astro-ph.CO 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A flexible, template-free BAO model built on Zel'dovich smearing recovers the BAO ruler and growth rate without cosmological bias in mock DESI-like data.

  2. One-Loop Galaxy Bispectrum: Consistent Theory, Efficient Analysis with COBRA, and Implications for Cosmological Parameters

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the COBRA basis, the one-loop EFT galaxy bispectrum runs in about one second per cosmology and recovers the input cosmology of PTChallenge simulations up to k_max = 0.15 h/Mpc (monopole) and 0.12 h/Mpc (higher m...

  3. Renormalized Perturbation Theory at Field-level: the LSS bootstrap in GridSPT

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A renormalized field-level perturbation theory is shown to recover the LSS bootstrap parameter consistently across different grid cutoffs, validated at third and fifth order against N-body simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [48]

    Gil-Mar ´ ın, W

    H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, W. J. Percival, L. Verde, J. R. Brown- stein, C.-H. Chuang, F.-S. Kitaura, S. A. Rodr ´ ıguez- Torres, and M. D. Olmstead, The clustering of galax- ies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: RSD measurement from the power spectrum and bispectrum of the DR12 BOSS galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society...

    2017

  2. [64]

    Crocce and R

    M. Crocce and R. Scoccimarro, Nonlinear evolution of baryon acoustic oscillations, Physical Review D 77, 023533 (2008)

    2008

  3. [1]

    The two left-hand panels of Fig

    Performance metrics as a function of kmax To begin with, we apply the same scale cut to the monopole, quadrupole, and hexadecapole of the power spectrum and fit the resulting datasets for six differ- ent values of kP max, ranging from 0 .15 to 0 .4 h Mpc−1. The two left-hand panels of Fig. 7 display the FoB, ¯ p- value, and FoM for the two different galax...

  4. [2]

    We therefore want to explore whether the analysis of the pre- vious section can be enhanced by applying different scale cuts to the various multipoles

    Different multipole scale cut choices The quadrupole and hexadecapole moments of the power spectrum are more sensitive to RSD than the monopole, making them potentially more vulnerable to inaccuracies in the RSD mapping on larger scales. We therefore want to explore whether the analysis of the pre- vious section can be enhanced by applying different scale...

  5. [3]

    the power spectrum on BAO scales is not accurately modelled, as no IR resummation is applied

  6. [4]

    nuisance

    Projection and prior effects Recent studies [101–103] have demonstrated that cosmological constraints derived from current galaxy clustering measurements can be subject to so-called prior volume projection effects . These effects oc- cur when marginalising over high-dimensional, non- Gaussian posteriors—i.e., when projecting into a lower- dimensional subs...

  7. [5]

    While the parametrisation used in the baseline VDG ∞ model is motivated by resumming quadratic non-linearities in the infinite separation limit (see Sec

    Comparison with phenomenological damping functions The VDG is the key ingredient in the VDG∞ model, as it describes how non-linearities in the RSD mapping af- fect the clustering statistics in the large scale limit. While the parametrisation used in the baseline VDG ∞ model is motivated by resumming quadratic non-linearities in the infinite separation lim...

  8. [6]

    Therefore, we now approach the is- 23 FIG

    Constraints on counterterms for different models The performance metrics do not indicate a clear prefer- ence for any of the three models of the VDG considered in the previous section. Therefore, we now approach the is- 23 FIG. 12. Constraints on the redshift-space counterterms for four different modelling options as a function of scale cut (same for all ...

Show all 125 references
  1. [7]

    Our ini- tial goal is to evaluate the performance of the EFT and VDG∞ bispectrum models while keeping the power spec- trum scale cut fixed

    Performance at fixed power spectrum scale cut In this section, we analyse the monopole and quadrupole of the bispectrum in conjunction with the previously studied power spectrum multipoles. Our ini- tial goal is to evaluate the performance of the EFT and VDG∞ bispectrum models...

  2. [8]

    Varying power spectrum and bispectrum scale cuts We now examine two additional power spectrum scale cuts: kP max = (0 .3, 0.25, 0.25) h Mpc−1 and kP max = (0.2, 0.15, 0.15) h Mpc−1, while varying kB max across the same values as before. This analysis serves two purposes: first...

  3. [9]

    We have already demonstrated this in Sec

    Testing bispectrum counterterm prescriptions Unlike for the power spectrum, in the regime where we analyse the bispectrum measurements, the effect of the VDG can still be captured perturbatively. We have already demonstrated this in Sec. V C, where we ex- ploit this fact to ef...

  4. [10]

    Information gain from the bispectrum Finally, we explore the extent to which cosmological constraints can be enhanced by combining information from the bispectrum multipoles with the power spectrum. For this comparison, we select the scale cut combinations that maximise the Fo...

  5. [11]

    the EFT, which expands the mapping from real to redshift space perturbatively and aims to account for the FoG effect, caused by small-scale, virialised velocities, through a series of counterterms with ad- justable amplitudes

  6. [12]

    an approach centred on the VDG, which encapsu- lates all non-perturbative effects of small-scale ve- locities and which is modelled here in terms of an effective damping function (specifically referred to as the VDG ∞ model). We applied these models to the first three Legendre...

  7. [13]

    Collaboration, A

    DESI. Collaboration, A. Aghamousa, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. E. Allen, C. A. Prieto, J. Annis, 31 S. Bailey, and C. Balland et al., The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design (2016), arXiv:1611.00036 [astro-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J

    Euclid Collaboration, Y. Mellier, Abdurro’uf, J. A. A. Barroso, A. Ach´ ucarro, J. Adamek, R. Adam, G. E. Addison, N. Aghanim, and M. Aguena et al., Eu- clid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission (2024), arXiv:2405.13491 [astro-ph]

    2024

  9. [15]

    M. M. Ivanov, Effective Field Theory for Large Scale Structure (2022), arXiv:2212.08488 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [16]

    d’Amico, J

    G. d’Amico, J. Gleyzes, N. Kokron, K. Markovic, L. Senatore, P. Zhang, F. Beutler, and H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, The cosmological analysis of the SDSS/BOSS data from the Effective Field Theory of Large-Scale Structure, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (05), 005

    2020

  11. [17]

    M. M. Ivanov, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Cos- mological Parameters from the BOSS Galaxy Power Spectrum, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (05), 042, arXiv:1909.05277

    2020 arXiv

  12. [18]

    A. G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. M. Alexander, M. Alvarez, O. Alves, A. Anand, U. An- drade, and E. Armengaud et al., DESI 2024 V: Full- Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars (2024), arXiv:2411.12021 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [19]

    J. C. Jackson, A Critique of Rees’s Theory of Primordial Gravitational Radiation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 156, 1P (1972)

    1972

  14. [20]

    De Lapparent, M

    V. De Lapparent, M. J. Geller, and J. P. Huchra, A slice of the universe, The Astrophysical Journal 302, L1 (1986)

    1986

  15. [21]

    M. S. Vogeley, C. Park, M. J. Geller, and J. P. Huchra, Large-scale clustering of galaxies in the CfA Redshift Survey, The Astrophysical Journal 391, L5 (1992)

    1992

  16. [22]

    Kaiser, Clustering in real space and in redshift space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society227, 1 (1987)

    N. Kaiser, Clustering in real space and in redshift space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society227, 1 (1987)

    1987

  17. [23]

    S. Cole, K. B. Fisher, and D. H. Weinberg, Fourier anal- ysis of redshift-space distortions and the determination of, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 267, 785 (1994)

    1994

  18. [24]

    K. B. Fisher and A. Nusser, The non-linear redshift- space power spectrum: From redshift surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 279, L1 (1996)

    1996

  19. [25]

    A. N. Taylor and A. J. S. Hamilton, Non-linear cosmo- logical power spectra in real and redshift space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 282, 767 (1996)

    1996

  20. [26]

    Hatton and S

    S. Hatton and S. Cole, Modelling the redshift-space distortion of galaxy clustering, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 296, 10 (1998)

    1998

  21. [27]

    Scoccimarro, Redshift-Space Distortions, Pairwise Velocities and Nonlinearities, Physical Review D 70, 083007 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407214

    R. Scoccimarro, Redshift-Space Distortions, Pairwise Velocities and Nonlinearities, Physical Review D 70, 083007 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407214

    2004 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Eggemeier, R

    A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro, M. Crocce, A. Pez- zotta, and A. G. S´ anchez, Testing one-loop galaxy bias: Power spectrum, Physical Review D 102, 103530 (2020), arXiv:2006.09729

    2020 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Pezzotta, M

    A. Pezzotta, M. Crocce, A. Eggemeier, A. G. S´ anchez, and R. Scoccimarro, Testing one-loop galaxy bias: Cos- mological constraints from the power spectrum, Phys- ical Review D 104, 043531 (2021), arXiv:2102.08315 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Pezzotta, C

    Euclid Collaboration, A. Pezzotta, C. Moretti, M. Zen- naro, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, M. Crocce, E. Sefusatti, I. Ferrero, K. Pardede, and A. Eggemeier et al., Euclid preparation: XLI. Galaxy power spectrum modelling in real space, Astronomy & Astrophysics 687, A216 (2024)

    2024

  25. [31]

    Nishimichi, G

    T. Nishimichi, G. D’Amico, M. M. Ivanov, L. Sen- atore, M. Simonovi´ c, M. Takada, M. Zaldarriaga, and P. Zhang, Blinded challenge for precision cos- mology with large-scale structure: Results from effec- tive field theory for the redshift-space galaxy power spectrum, Physical...

    2020 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Chudaykin, K

    A. Chudaykin, K. Dolgikh, and M. M. Ivanov, Con- straints on the curvature of the Universe and dynamical dark energy from the Full-shape and BAO data, Phys- ical Review D 103, 023507 (2021), arXiv:2009.10106 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [33]

    M. Maus, Y. Lai, H. E. Noriega, S. Ramirez-Solano, A. Aviles, S. Chen, S. Fromenteau, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, C. Howlett, and M. Vargas-Maga˜ na et al., A compar- ison of effective field theory models of redshift space galaxy power spectra for DESI 2024 and future surveys (2024), arX...

    2024 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Eggemeier, R

    A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro, R. E. Smith, M. Crocce, A. Pezzotta, and A. G. S´ anchez, Testing one-loop galaxy bias: Joint analysis of power spectrum and bispectrum, Physical Review D 103, 123550 (2021), arXiv:2102.06902

    2021 arXiv

  29. [35]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, T. Nishimichi, M. Si- monovi´ c, M. Takada, and M. Zaldarriaga, Precision analysis of the redshift-space galaxy bispectrum, Phys- ical Review D 105, 063512 (2022), arXiv:2110.10161 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [36]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. M. Ivanov, The BOSS DR12 Full-Shape Cosmology: $\Lambda$CDM Constraints from the Large-Scale Galaxy Power Spectrum and Bis- pectrum Monopole, Physical Review D 105, 043517 (2022), arXiv:2112.04515 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [37]

    M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, G. Cabass, T. Nishimichi, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zaldarriaga, Cos- mology with the Galaxy Bispectrum Multipoles: Opti- mal Estimation and Application to BOSS Data, Phys- ical Review D 107, 083515 (2023), arXiv:2302.04414 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [38]

    D’Amico, Y

    G. D’Amico, Y. Donath, M. Lewandowski, L. Sena- tore, and P. Zhang, The BOSS bispectrum analysis at one loop from the Effective Field Theory of Large- Scale Structure, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2024 (05), 059

    2024

  33. [39]

    D’Amico, Y

    G. D’Amico, Y. Donath, M. Lewandowski, L. Senatore, and P. Zhang, The one-loop bispectrum of galaxies in redshift space from the Effective Field Theory of Large- Scale Structure, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2024 (07), 041

    2024

  34. [40]

    P. J. E. Peebles, The Large-Scale Structure of the Uni- verse (Princeton University Press, 1980)

    1980

  35. [41]

    K. B. Fisher, On the Validity of the Streaming Model for the Redshift-Space Correlation Function in the Linear Regime, The Astrophysical Journal 448, 494 (1995)

    1995

  36. [42]

    Kuruvilla and C

    J. Kuruvilla and C. Porciani, The $n$-point stream- ing model: How velocities shape correlation functions in redshift space, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2020 (07), 043, arXiv:2005.05331. 32

    2020 arXiv

  37. [43]

    B. A. Reid and M. White, Towards an accurate model of the redshift-space clustering of haloes in the quasi-linear regime: Redshift-space distortions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 417, 1913 (2011)

    2011

  38. [44]

    L. Wang, B. Reid, and M. White, An analytic model for redshift-space distortions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 437, 588 (2014)

    2014

  39. [45]

    Taruya, T

    A. Taruya, T. Nishimichi, and S. Saito, Baryon Acous- tic Oscillations in 2D: Modeling Redshift-space Power Spectrum from Perturbation Theory, Physical Re- view D 82, 063522 (2010), arXiv:1006.0699 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Beutler, S

    F. Beutler, S. Saito, H.-J. Seo, J. Brinkmann, K. S. Dawson, D. J. Eisenstein, A. Font-Ribera, S. Ho, C. K. McBride, and F. Montesano et al., The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: Testing gravity with redshift-space dis- tortions...

    2014 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Beutler, H.-J

    F. Beutler, H.-J. Seo, S. Saito, C.-H. Chuang, A. J. Cuesta, D. J. Eisenstein, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, J. N. Grieb, N. Hand, and F.-S. Kitaura et al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Anisotropic galaxy clustering in Fourie...

    2017

  42. [49]

    Gil-Mar ´ ın, J

    H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, J. E. Bautista, R. Paviot, M. Vargas- Maga˜ na, S. de la Torre, S. Fromenteau, S. Alam, S. ´Avila, E. Burtin, and C.-H. Chuang et al., The Com- pleted SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectro- scopic Survey: Measurement of the BAO and growth rate of structu...

    2020

  43. [50]

    Eggemeier, B

    A. Eggemeier, B. Camacho-Quevedo, A. Pezzotta, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro, and A. G. S´ anchez, COMET : Clustering observables modelled by emulated perturbation theory, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 519, 2962 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, O. H. E. Philcox, and M. Simonovi´ c, Non-linear perturbation theory extension of the Boltzmann code CLASS, Physical Review D 102, 063533 (2020), arXiv:2004.10607

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    D’Amico, L

    G. D’Amico, L. Senatore, and P. Zhang, Limits on w CDM from the EFTofLSS with the PyBird code, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (01), 006

    2021

  46. [53]

    S.-F. Chen, Z. Vlah, E. Castorina, and M. White, Redshift-space distortions in Lagrangian perturbation theory, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (03), 100

    2021

  47. [54]

    Linde, A

    D. Linde, A. M. Dizgah, C. Radermacher, S. Casas, and J. Lesgourgues, CLASS-OneLoop: Accurate and unbi- ased inference from spectroscopic galaxy surveys, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (07), 068

    2024

  48. [55]

    H. E. Noriega, A. Aviles, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, S. Ramirez- Solano, S. Fromenteau, M. Vargas-Maga˜ na, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, O. Alves, and S. Brieden et al., Com- paring Compressed and Full-modeling Analyses with FOLPS: Implications for DESI 2024 and beyond (2024), arXiv:2404.07269...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    A. G. Sanchez, Arguments against using $hˆ{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ units in observational cosmology, Physical Re- view D 102, 123511 (2020), arXiv:2002.07829 [astro-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [57]

    A. G. Sanchez, A. N. Ruiz, J. G. Jara, and N. D. Padilla, Evolution mapping: A new approach to describe mat- ter clustering in the non-linear regime, arXiv:2108.12710 [astro-ph] (2021), arXiv:2108.12710 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Scoccimarro, H

    R. Scoccimarro, H. M. P. Couchman, and J. Frieman, The bispectrum as a signature of gravitational instabil- ity in redshift space, The Astrophysical Journal 517, 531 (1999)

    1999

  52. [59]

    A. G. Sanchez, R. Scoccimarro, M. Crocce, J. N. Grieb, S. Salazar-Albornoz, C. DallaVecchia, M. Lip- pich, F. Beutler, J. R. Brownstein, and C.-H. Chuang et al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS- III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmo- logical impli...

    2017 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Scoccimarro, Pairwise velocities at infinity and the redshift-space power spectrum (in prep.)

    R. Scoccimarro, Pairwise velocities at infinity and the redshift-space power spectrum (in prep.)

  54. [61]

    Bernardeau, S

    F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga, and R. Scoc- cimarro, Large-Scale Structure of the Universe and Cos- mological Perturbation Theory, Physics Reports 367, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0112551

    2002 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Meiksin, M

    A. Meiksin, M. White, and J. A. Peacock, Baryonic sig- natures in large-scale structure, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 304, 851 (1999)

    1999

  56. [63]

    D. J. Eisenstein, H.-J. Seo, and M. White, On the Ro- bustness of the Acoustic Scale in the Low-Redshift Clus- tering of Matter, The Astrophysical Journal 664, 660 (2007)

    2007

  57. [65]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, The IR-resummed Ef- fective Field Theory of Large Scale Structures, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (02), 013

    2015

  58. [66]

    Z. Vlah, U. Seljak, M. Y. Chu, and Y. Feng, Perturba- tion theory, effective field theory, and oscillations in the power spectrum, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2016 (03), 057, arXiv:1509.02120 [astro-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Baldauf, M

    T. Baldauf, M. Mirbabayi, M. Simonovi´ c, and M. Zal- darriaga, Equivalence Principle and the Baryon Acous- tic Peak, Physical Review D 92, 043514 (2015), arXiv:1504.04366

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. Blas, M. Garny, M. M. Ivanov, and S. Sibiryakov, Time-Sliced Perturbation Theory II: Baryon Acous- tic Oscillations and Infrared Resummation, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (07), 028, arXiv:1605.02149 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    M. M. Ivanov and S. Sibiryakov, Infrared Resum- mation for Biased Tracers in Redshift Space, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (07), 053, arXiv:1804.05080 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph, 33 physics:hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. N. Grieb, A. G. S´ anchez, S. Salazar-Albornoz, R. Scoccimarro, M. Crocce, C. Dalla Vecchia, F. Mon- tesano, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, A. J. Ross, and F. Beutler et al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmologi- cal impl...

    2017

  63. [71]

    J. Hou, A. G. S´ anchez, R. Scoccimarro, S. Salazar- Albornoz, E. Burtin, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın, W. J. Percival, R. Ruggeri, P. Zarrouk, and G.-B. Zhao et al., The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey DR14 quasar sample: Anisotropic clustering a...

    2018

  64. [72]

    Neveux, E

    R. Neveux, E. Burtin, A. de Mattia, A. Smith, A. J. Ross, J. Hou, J. Bautista, J. Brinkmann, C.-H. Chuang, and K. S. Dawson et al., The completed SDSS-IV ex- tended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from the anisotropic power spectrum of the qua...

    2020

  65. [73]

    J. Hou, A. G. S´ anchez, A. J. Ross, A. Smith, R. Neveux, J. Bautista, E. Burtin, C. Zhao, R. Scoccimarro, and K. S. Dawson et al., The completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: BAO and RSD measurements from anisotropic clustering analy- sis of the qu...

    2020

  66. [74]

    Semenaite, A

    A. Semenaite, A. G. S´ anchez, A. Pezzotta, J. Hou, R. Scoccimarro, A. Eggemeier, M. Crocce, C.-H. Chuang, A. Smith, and C. Zhao et al., Cosmological implications of the full shape of anisotropic clustering measurements in BOSS and eBOSS, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi...

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Semenaite, A

    A. Semenaite, A. G. S´ anchez, A. Pezzotta, J. Hou, A. Eggemeier, M. Crocce, C. Zhao, J. R. Brownstein, G. Rossi, and D. P. Schneider, Beyond$\Lambda$CDM constraints from the full shape clustering measurements from BOSS and eBOSS (2022), arXiv:2210.07304 [astro- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Noorikuhani, Topics in Large Scale Clustering Statistics in Cosmology , Ph.D

    M. Noorikuhani, Topics in Large Scale Clustering Statistics in Cosmology , Ph.D. thesis, NYU, Depart- ment of Physics (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt, Large- Scale Galaxy Bias, Physics Reports 733, 1 (2018), arXiv:1611.09787

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    McDonald and A

    P. McDonald and A. Roy, Clustering of dark matter tracers: Generalizing bias for the coming era of precision LSS, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2009 (08), 020

    2009

  71. [79]

    K. C. Chan, R. Scoccimarro, and R. K. Sheth, Gravity and Large-Scale Non-local Bias, Physical Review D 85, 083509 (2012), arXiv:1201.3614 [astro-ph, physics:hep- th]

    2012 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Assassi, D

    V. Assassi, D. Baumann, D. Green, and M. Zaldarriaga, Renormalized Halo Bias, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (08), 056, arXiv:1402.5916 [astro-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Mirbabayi, F

    M. Mirbabayi, F. Schmidt, and M. Zaldarriaga, Biased tracers and time evolution, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (07), 030

    2015

  74. [82]

    Senatore, Bias in the effective field theory of large scale structures, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2015 (11), 007

    L. Senatore, Bias in the effective field theory of large scale structures, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2015 (11), 007

    2015

  75. [83]

    Eggemeier, R

    A. Eggemeier, R. Scoccimarro, and R. E. Smith, Bias Loop Corrections to the Galaxy Bispectrum, Physical Review D 99, 123514 (2019), arXiv:1812.03208 [astro- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Desjacques, Baryon acoustic signature in the cluster- ing of density maxima, Physical Review D 78, 103503 (2008)

    V. Desjacques, Baryon acoustic signature in the cluster- ing of density maxima, Physical Review D 78, 103503 (2008)

    2008

  77. [85]

    Desjacques, M

    V. Desjacques, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro, and R. K. Sheth, Modeling scale-dependent bias on the baryonic acoustic scale with the statistics of peaks of Gaussian random fields, Physical Review D 82, 103529 (2010)

    2010

  78. [86]

    Dekel and O

    A. Dekel and O. Lahav, Stochastic Nonlinear Galaxy Biasing, The Astrophysical Journal 520, 24 (1999)

    1999

  79. [87]

    Taruya and J

    A. Taruya and J. Soda, Stochastic Biasing and the Galaxy–Mass Density Relation in the Weakly Nonlin- ear Regime, The Astrophysical Journal 522, 46 (1999)

    1999

  80. [88]

    Matsubara, Stochasticity of Bias and Nonlocality of Galaxy Formation: Linear Scales, The Astrophysical Journal 525, 543 (1999)

    T. Matsubara, Stochasticity of Bias and Nonlocality of Galaxy Formation: Linear Scales, The Astrophysical Journal 525, 543 (1999)

    1999

  81. [89]

    Perko, L

    A. Perko, L. Senatore, E. Jennings, and R. H. Wech- sler, Biased Tracers in Redshift Space in the EFT of Large-Scale Structure (2016), arXiv:1610.09321 [astro- ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong, and F. Schmidt, The Galaxy Power Spectrum and Bispectrum in Redshift Space, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2018 (12), 035, arXiv:1806.04015

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    De Mattia, V

    A. De Mattia, V. Ruhlmann-Kleider, A. Raichoor, A. J. Ross, A. Tamone, C. Zhao, S. Alam, S. Avila, E. Burtin, and J. Bautista et al., The Completed SDSS-IV ex- tended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Mea- surement of the BAO and growth rate of structure of the emission...

    2020

  84. [92]

    O. H. E. Philcox, M. M. Ivanov, G. Cabass, M. Si- monovi´ c, M. Zaldarriaga, and T. Nishimichi, Cosmology with the Redshift-Space Galaxy Bispectrum Monopole at One-Loop Order (2022), arXiv:2206.02800 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, Redshift Space Distor- tions in the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Struc- tures (2014), arXiv:1409.1225 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Pueblas and R

    S. Pueblas and R. Scoccimarro, Generation of vortic- ity and velocity dispersion by orbit crossing, Physical Review D 80, 043504 (2009)

    2009

  87. [95]

    Baumann, A

    D. Baumann, A. Nicolis, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldar- riaga, Cosmological non-linearities as an effective fluid, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (07), 051

    2012

  88. [96]

    J. J. M. Carrasco, M. P. Hertzberg, and L. Sen- atore, The Effective Field Theory of Cosmological Large Scale Structures, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, 82 (2012), arXiv:1206.2926 [astro-ph, physics:gr- qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  89. [97]

    J. N. Grieb, A. G. S´ anchez, S. Salazar-Albornoz, and C. Dalla Vecchia, Gaussian covariance matrices for 34 anisotropic galaxy clustering measurements, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 457, 1577 (2016)

    2016

  90. [98]

    Lippich, A

    M. Lippich, A. G. S´ anchez, M. Colavincenzo, E. Se- fusatti, P. Monaco, L. Blot, M. Crocce, M. A. Alvarez, A. Agrawal, and S. Avila et al., Comparing approximate methods for mock catalogues and covariance matrices – I. Correlation function, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astron...

    2019

  91. [99]

    Springel, The cosmological simulation code gadget- 2, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 364, 1105 (2005)

    V. Springel, The cosmological simulation code gadget- 2, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 364, 1105 (2005)

    2005

  92. [100]

    Springel, S

    V. Springel, S. D. M. White, G. Tormen, and G. Kauff- mann, Populating a cluster of galaxies – I. Results at z = 0, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 328, 726 (2001)

    2001

  93. [101]

    Scoccimarro, Fast Estimators for Redshift-Space Clustering, Physical Review D 92, 083532 (2015), arXiv:1506.02729

    R. Scoccimarro, Fast Estimators for Redshift-Space Clustering, Physical Review D 92, 083532 (2015), arXiv:1506.02729

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Sefusatti, M

    E. Sefusatti, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro, and H. M. P. Couchman, Accurate estimators of correlation functions in Fourier space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 460, 3624 (2016)

    2016

  95. [103]

    Wadekar and R

    D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro, Galaxy Power Spectrum Multipoles Covariance in Perturbation Theory, Physical Review D 102, 123517 (2020), arXiv:1910.02914 [astro-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Rizzo, C

    F. Rizzo, C. Moretti, K. Pardede, A. Eggemeier, A. Oddo, E. Sefusatti, C. Porciani, and P. Monaco, The halo bispectrum multipoles in redshift space, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (01), 031

    2023

  97. [105]

    Biagetti, L

    M. Biagetti, L. Castiblanco, J. Nore˜ na, and E. Sefusatti, The Covariance of Squeezed Bispectrum Configurations, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (09), 009, arXiv:2111.05887 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Salvalaggio, L

    J. Salvalaggio, L. Castiblanco, J. Nore˜ na, E. Sefusatti, and P. Monaco, Bispectrum non-Gaussian covariance in redshift space, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (08), 046

    2024

  99. [107]

    Tegmark, A Method for Extracting Maximum Reso- lution Power Spectra from Galaxy Surveys, The Astro- physical Journal 455, 429 (1995)

    M. Tegmark, A Method for Extracting Maximum Reso- lution Power Spectra from Galaxy Surveys, The Astro- physical Journal 455, 429 (1995)

    1995

  100. [108]

    Feroz and M

    F. Feroz and M. P. Hobson, Multimodal nested sam- pling: An efficient and robust alternative to Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for astronomical data anal- yses: Multimodal nested sampling, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 384, 449 (2008)

    2008

  101. [109]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MultiNest: An efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmol- ogy and particle physics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 398, 1601 (2009)

    2009

  102. [110]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, E. Cameron, and A. N. Pettitt, Importance Nested Sampling and the Multi- Nest Algorithm, The Open Journal of Astrophysics 2, 10.21105/astro.1306.2144 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Buchner, A

    J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, C. Rangel, M. Brightman, A. Merloni, M. Salvato, J. Donley, and D. Kocevski, X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue, Astronomy & Astro- physics 564, A125 (2014)

    2014

  104. [112]

    Lewis, GetDist: A Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples (2019)

    A. Lewis, GetDist: A Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples (2019)

    2019

  105. [113]

    Carrilho, C

    P. Carrilho, C. Moretti, and A. Pourtsidou, Cosmol- ogy with the EFTofLSS and BOSS: Dark energy con- straints and a note on priors, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (01), 028, arXiv:2207.14784 [astro-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Simon, P

    T. Simon, P. Zhang, V. Poulin, and T. L. Smith, Consistency of effective field theory analyses of the BOSS power spectrum, Physical Review D 107, 123530 (2023), arXiv:2208.05929 [astro-ph, physics:hep- ph, physics:hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  107. [115]

    E. B. Holm, L. Herold, T. Simon, E. G. M. Ferreira, S. Hannestad, V. Poulin, and T. Tram, Bayesian and frequentist investigation of prior effects in EFTofLSS analyses of full-shape BOSS and eBOSS data (2023), arXiv:2309.04468 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Raveri, G

    M. Raveri, G. Zacharegkas, and W. Hu, Quantifying concordance of correlated cosmological data sets, Phys- ical Review D 101, 103527 (2020)

    2020

  109. [117]

    Alcock and B

    C. Alcock and B. Paczy´ nski, An evolution free test for non-zero cosmological constant, Nature281, 358 (1979)

    1979

  110. [118]

    W. E. Ballinger, J. A. Peacock, and A. F. Heavens, Mea- suring the cosmological constant with redshift surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society282, 877 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605017

    1996 arXiv

  111. [119]

    N. S. Sugiyama, S. Saito, F. Beutler, and H.-J. Seo, Towards a self-consistent analysis of the anisotropic galaxy two- and three-point correlation functions on large scales: Application to mock galaxy catalogues, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society501, 2862 (2021)

    2021

  112. [120]

    Khomeriki and L

    G. Khomeriki and L. Samushia, Mixing bispectrum mul- tipoles under geometric distortions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 5886 (2023)

    2023

  113. [121]

    A. Oddo, E. Sefusatti, C. Porciani, P. Monaco, and A. G. S´ anchez, Toward a robust inference method for the galaxy bispectrum: Likelihood function and model selection, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2020 (03), 056, arXiv:1908.01774

    2020 arXiv

  114. [122]

    A. Oddo, F. Rizzo, E. Sefusatti, C. Porciani, and P. Monaco, Cosmological parameters from the likeli- hood analysis of the galaxy power spectrum and bispec- trum in real space, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2021 (11), 038, arXiv:2108.03204 [astro- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Chudaykin and M

    A. Chudaykin and M. M. Ivanov, Cosmological con- straints from the power spectrum of eBOSS quasars, Physical Review D 107, 043518 (2023)

    2023

  116. [124]

    Chudaykin, M

    A. Chudaykin, M. M. Ivanov, and M. Simonovi´ c, Opti- mizing large-scale structure data analysis with the theo- retical error likelihood, Physical Review D 103, 043525 (2021)

    2021

  117. [125]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Computing in Science & Engineering 9, 90 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.