AG-2026.06-780·astro-ph.CO
Towards Practical Field-Level Inference for Weak Lensing
Authors
- Yuuki Omori
- Justine Zeghal
- Chihway Chang
- François Lanusse
- Laurence Perreault-Levasseur
Abstract
Nonlinear structure growth generates higher-order correlations and morphological features in the cosmic density field that cannot be fully characterized by two-point statistics. Upcoming surveys will measure these features with greater precision, making it essential to develop methods capable of extracting as much cosmological information as possible from them. Field-level inference (FLI) is one such approach, in which cosmological parameters are constrained by comparing observed maps to forward-modeled maps, either directly or through learned summaries that retain map-level information. In this work, we compare FLI with power-spectrum-based inference using the same forward-modeling pipeline for generating weak lensing maps, with the goal of quantifying the gain from map-level analysis relative to two-point statistics. We perform this comparison with both implicit and explicit inference methods, using 8-million-parameter forward models based on Lagrangian perturbation theory and particle-mesh (PM) N-body evolution. The two FLI approaches yield closely consistent posteriors; this agreement, together with coverage tests confirming the calibration of the implicit analyses, gives us confidence in the recovered field-level constraints. Relative to the power-spectrum-based analyses, these results show significant gains in cosmological information, especially when small scales are included in the PM-based forward model. We then discuss the remaining challenges that must be addressed before PM-based explicit FLI can be applied to observational datasets.
Submitted
10 June 2026yesterday
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.12255
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.