Cited by 27Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

Neural physical engines for inferring the halo mass distribution function

Open access
Charnock, Tom, Lavaux, Guilhem, Wandelt, Benjamin D, Sarma Boruah, Supranta, Jasche, Jens, Hudson, Michael J·2020·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

An ambitious goal in cosmology is to forward model the observed distribution of galaxies in the nearby Universe today from the initial conditions of large-scale structures. For practical reasons, the spatial resolution at which this can be done is necessarily limited. Consequently, one needs a mapping between the density of dark matter averaged over ∼Mpc scales and the distribution of dark matter haloes (used as a proxy for galaxies) in the same region. Here, we demonstrate a method for determining the halo mass distribution function by learning the tracer bias between density fields and halo catalogues using a neural bias model. The method is based on the Bayesian analysis of simple, physically motivated, neural network-like architectures, which we denote as neural physical engines, and neural density estimation. As a result, we are able to sample the initial phases of the dark matter density field while inferring the parameters describing the halo mass distribution function, providing a fully Bayesian interpretation of both the initial dark matter density distribution and the neural bias model. We successfully run an upgraded borg (Bayesian Origin Reconstruction from Galaxies) inference using our new likelihood and neural bias model with halo catalogues derived from full N-body simulations. In preliminary results, we notice there could potentially be orders of magnitude improvement in modelling compared to classical biasing techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/staa682

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BNNs compute an approximation of the true posterior distributions which sometimes might not be accurate enough.

    “However, one need to keep in mind that BNNs compute an approximation of the true posterior distributions which sometimes might not be accurate enough (see review by Charnock et al. 2020).”

    From The Dawes Review 10: The impact of deep learning for the analysis of galaxy surveys (2023) · cites this paper as Charnock et al. 2020

    Section 3.3 (p. 5) describes sampling the model’s posterior with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, and Section 6 (p. 9) calls the resulting network Bayesian. Neither passage addresses the claim that BNN posterior approximations can be insufficiently accurate; searches for that claim and its paraphrases found no such discussion in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Behroozi P. S., Wechsler R. H., Wu H.-Y., 2013, ApJ, 762, 109 Bezanson J., Edelman A., Karpinski S., Shah V. B., 2017, SIAM review, 59, 65
  2. Duane S., Kennedy A. D., Pendleton B. J., Roweth D., 1987, Physics Letters B, 195, 216
  3. Elsner F., Schmidt F., Jasche J., Lavaux G., Nguyen N.-M., 2019, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:1906.07143 · arXiv
  4. Malmaud J., White L., 2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 1002
  5. Neyman J., Pearson E. S., 1933, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 231, 289
  6. Press W. H., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charnock, T., Lavaux, G., Wandelt, B. D., Sarma Boruah, S., Jasche, J., & Hudson, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Charnock, Tom
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2020-03-13
Volume
494
Issue
1
Pages
50-61
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2972671918
Cited by
26
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 6
FWCI
1.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-16-CE23-0002)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Keywords
dark matter halos, dark matter density field, Bayesian inference, neural density estimation, Borg, large-scale structure, N-body simulations, galaxy distribution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review