Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Test of Artificial Neural Networks in Likelihood-free Cosmological Constraints: A Comparison of IMNN and DAE

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.05064 v4 pith:BTRJZ5JC submitted 2022-11-09 astro-ph.CO

Test of Artificial Neural Networks in Likelihood-free Cosmological Constraints: A Comparison of IMNN and DAE

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords dataimnncosmologicaldifferentparametersposteriorbettercombination
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In the procedure of constraining the cosmological parameters with the observational Hubble data and the type Ia supernova data, the combination of Masked Autoregressive Flow and Denoising Autoencoder can perform a good result. The above combination extracts the features from OHD with DAE, and estimates the posterior distribution of cosmological parameters with MAF. We ask whether we can find a better tool to compress large data in order to gain better results while constraining the cosmological parameters. Information maximising neural networks, a kind of simulation-based machine learning technique, was proposed at an earlier time. In a series of numerical examples, the results show that IMNN can find optimal, non-linear summaries robustly. In this work, we mainly compare the dimensionality reduction capabilities of IMNN and DAE. We use IMNN and DAE to compress the data into different dimensions and set different learning rates for MAF to calculate the posterior. Meanwhile, the training data and mock OHD are generated with a simple Gaussian likelihood, the spatially flat {\Lambda}CDM model and the real OHD data. To avoid the complex calculation in comparing the posterior directly, we set different criteria to compare IMNN and DAE.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Comparative Analysis of EMCEE, Gaussian Process, and Masked Autoregressive Flow in Constraining the Hubble Constant Using Cosmic Chronometers Dataset

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 3.0

    EMCEE outperforms GP and MAF in recovering true H0 from mock cosmic chronometer datasets, with GP most sensitive to data points via delete-d jackknife analysis.