NERV: Neural-network Enhanced Reconstruction of the UniVerse with Application to Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the BOSS DR12 Galaxy Sample

In this work, we use the BOSS Data Release 12 (DR12) galaxy catalog as our observational data set [18, 15, 38]. We additionally use the MultiDark-Patchy mock catalogs to estimate the covariance matrices. Both the BOSS data and the mock catalogs are divided into two redshift bins, $(z_{\mathrm{min}},z_{\mathrm{max}})=\{(0.2,0.5),(0.5,0.75)\}$, with corresponding effective redshifts $z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.38$ and $0.61$, respectively. We adopt the standard BOSS systematic weights $w_{c}=(w_{\mathrm{rf}}+w_{\mathrm{fc}}-1)w_{\mathrm{sys}}$ throughout the analysis where $w_{\mathrm{rf}}$ is the redshift failure weight, $w_{\mathrm{fc}}$ is the fibre collision weight and $w_{\mathrm{sys}}$ is systematics weight. A total of $N_{\mathrm{sim}}=500$ mock realizations are used to estimate the covariance matrices of the power-spectrum multipoles for both the pre- and post-reconstruction measurements. Throughout the analysis, we adopt a flat $\Lambda$CDM fiducial cosmology with $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}=0.3152$ and $h=0.6736$ to convert observed redshifts and angles into comoving Cartesian coordinates. This fiducial model matches the base cosmology of the AbacusSummit simulations used for training, ensuring that no cosmology mismatch is introduced between the training and inference stages.

The galaxy overdensity field is calculated from the galaxy and random catalogs via

where $G(\bm{x})$ and $R(\bm{x})$ denote the weighted galaxy and random number-density fields respectively. The normalization factor is defined as

where $N_{\mathrm{gal}}$ and $N_{\mathrm{ran}}$ are the total weighted numbers of galaxies and random particles.

We use an additional set of mock galaxy catalogs constructed from the AbacusSummit simulations [30] to train the neural network. Specifically, we employ the first 24 of 25 base-resolution simulations at $z=0.5$. Dark-matter haloes are identified using the CompaSO halo finder [24], and galaxies are subsequently populated with AbacusHOD [47] to approximately reproduce the properties of the observed galaxy sample.

The resulting galaxy catalogs have a mean number density of $\bar{n}=8.5\times 10^{-4}\,h^{3}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$. Because the two redshift bins of the BOSS DR12 sample have different characteristic number densities, we train a separate network for each bin. For the first redshift bin ($z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.38$), we randomly downsample the training catalogs to $\bar{n}=5.0\times 10^{-4}\,h^{3}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, approximately matching the maximum number density of this bin. For the second redshift bin ($z_{\mathrm{eff}}=0.61$), we downsample instead to $\bar{n}=2.0\times 10^{-4}\,h^{3}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$, matching the lower characteristic number density of this higher-redshift bin. Finally, the galaxy distributions are assigned to $512^{3}$ Cartesian grids using the Triangular-Shaped-Cloud (TSC) mass-assignment scheme, corresponding to a grid spacing of $2000/512\approx 3.9\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$.

We adopt the same neural network architecture used by Parker et al. [36], which is illustrated in Figure 2 . The network consists of nine consecutive convolutional blocks, each containing two $3\times 3\times 3$ convolutional layers followed by ReLU activations. The input is a cubic subgrid of size $N_{\mathrm{sub}}^{3}=50^{3}$ with two channels, corresponding to the galaxy overdensity field $\delta_{g}$ and the standard-reconstructed field $\delta_{g}^{\mathrm{rec}}$. As the input propagates through the convolutional blocks, the spatial extent is progressively reduced, resulting in an output field of size $(N_{\mathrm{sub}}-18)^{3}=32^{3}$.

To train the network, we adopt the weighted Fourier-space loss function introduced by Parker et al. [36]:

where $f$ denotes the neural network and $\delta_{\ell}$ is the target linear density field. The weighting function $M(k)$ upweights modes in the range $k\in[0.08,0.5]\,h\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ by a factor of 10 and is set to unity otherwise. This weighting enhances the relative contribution of the modes that carry the BAO signature and the quasi-linear information targeted by the enhancement, following Eqs. (2.8) and (2.9) of Parker et al. [36].

To apply the trained CNN to curved-sky survey data, we construct a set of local Cartesian grids covering small angular regions on the sky. We first tessellate the survey footprint using the HEALPix scheme with NSIDE=4²² 2 We have verified that using NSIDE=3 or NSIDE=5 leads to nearly identical power-spectrum monopoles and quadrupoles, indicating that the results are insensitive to this choice., corresponding to 192 pixels with a characteristic angular scale of approximately $14.7^{\circ}$. Each HEALPix pixel defines the center of a local patch. To reduce boundary effects in the CNN inference, we include galaxies and randoms within $15.0^{\circ}$ of the patch center, such that the actual CNN input region extends beyond the corresponding HEALPix pixel. A more detailed discussion of the boundary treatment is presented in Section III.1.3. For each local patch, the galaxy and random catalogs are mapped onto a $384^{3}$ Cartesian grid with a side length of $L=1500\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$. The box size is chosen to fully contain the objects in each local patch, while the resulting grid spacing exactly matches that of the training grids. Within each patch, the trained network is applied to overlapping $50^{3}$ subgrids tiled across the grid, and the overlapping outputs are averaged to form the reconstructed density field of the patch.

In cubic simulations, the line of sight is usually fixed under the plane-parallel approximation. Combined with periodic boundary conditions, this preserves translational invariance, so the same neural network can be applied to different subvolumes by sliding a subgrid window across the simulation.

In real surveys, the line of sight varies across the sky because it is defined by the position of each galaxy relative to the observer. This breaks the exact translational invariance assumed in cubic simulations. However, within sufficiently small angular patches, this variation is limited, allowing NERV to be applied locally with an approximately fixed line of sight. The relevant question is therefore how small the local patches need to be for the plane-parallel approximation to remain accurate, and whether the residual line-of-sight variation within each local patch induces a significant bias in the reconstructed density field.

Figure 3 shows the fractional differences between density fields constructed with a fixed line of sight along the $z$-axis and with the local line of sight of each galaxy. The observer is placed at $(x,z)=(500,-400)\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$, so that the subbox covers a distance range similar to that of the first redshift bin. We compare three stages: the input density field, the field after standard reconstruction, and the field after NERV. As expected, the difference is smallest near the central line of sight and grows toward the edges, where the local direction deviates more from the $z$-axis. Within one NSIDE=4 HEALPix pixel, the difference remains modest at all three stages. The fixed-line-of-sight approximation is therefore accurate enough for the patches used in NERV.

In a single snapshot of a cubic simulation, the galaxy number density is usually fixed, so the statistical properties of the galaxy distribution are homogeneous along the line of sight. This is not the case for realistic galaxy surveys, where the observed number density varies with redshift and may also differ across sky regions due to observation artifacts. It is therefore important to test whether NERV remains robust in the presence of such effects.

In Figure 4, we compare the impact of fixed and redshift-dependent number densities on the reconstructed power spectrum. The blue curve in the left panel shows the number-density distribution of the BOSS DR12 galaxy catalog. We use this distribution within $0.2<z<0.61$ to randomly downsample galaxies in each subbox, with the $z$-axis as the line of sight. For comparison, we also generate a control sample with a fixed number density of $n_{g}=4.0\times 10^{-4}\,h^{3}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}$ (orange curve). In both cases, each galaxy is assigned a weight $w=1/n_{g}$, following the weighting convention used in the real-data analysis.

The right panel of Figure 4 shows the power spectra after standard reconstruction and after NERV, with and without the redshift-dependent selection. Although the imposed number density varies by nearly a factor of two over the redshift range, the power spectra change only at the $\sim 10\%$ level. The change is similar for standard reconstruction and for NERV, so the CNN stage does not amplify the selection effect. The change is also smooth in $k$, and a smooth change of this size is absorbed by the broadband marginalization in the BAO fit. We conclude that NERV is robust to realistic redshift-dependent number-density variations.

Survey boundaries are the third observational effect. In previous applications to cubic simulations, the reconstruction was performed with periodic boundary conditions, so each subgrid window contains a complete density-field input. In realistic surveys, however, boundaries are unavoidable due to the finite footprint and redshift coverage. When a reconstruction window approaches these boundaries, part of the input density field may lie outside the observed region, potentially biasing the CNN output. It is therefore necessary to quantify the impact of survey boundaries on the reconstructed density field.

In Figure 5, we show the fractional reconstruction error in a local region affected by survey boundaries. The local region has a volume of $(500\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc})^{3}$ and is truncated from a $(1000\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc})^{3}$ subbox. To mimic the unobserved region in a realistic survey, the density field outside this local region is set to zero before applying NERV. We then compare the reconstructed field obtained from this truncated region with that obtained from the full subbox.

As shown in Figure 5, the survey boundary does affect the reconstruction, but the induced error is localized near the boundary, mostly within $\sim 30\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$. For a more quantitative comparison, Figure 6 shows the fractional error as a function of the distance from the boundary. With the current configuration, the boundary-induced error drops below the percent level at a distance of $50\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$, and becomes consistent with numerical precision at $70\,h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$.

To mitigate these effects, we introduce an additional masking step that discards less reliable regions near the survey boundaries. For each grid cell $i$, we define an effective volume fraction $\gamma_{i}$ by centering the CNN subgrid window on that cell and computing the fraction of valid grid cells within the window:

Here $N_{\mathrm{tot}}$ is the total number of grid cells in the subgrid window, which is $N_{\mathrm{tot}}=50^{3}$ in this work, and $N_{\mathrm{eff}}^{i}$ is the number of valid grid cells within the window. A cell is considered valid if it lies inside the survey volume, i.e., if it contains at least one galaxy or random particle.

We then apply a threshold $\tilde{\gamma}$ to define the effective reconstruction region. Grid cells with $\gamma_{i}<\tilde{\gamma}$ are discarded from power spectrum estimation. Figure 5 shows the boundaries of the effective regions for thresholds $\tilde{\gamma}=0.6$ (red), $0.7$ (blue), and $0.8$ (green). The choice $\tilde{\gamma}=0.6$ removes the boundary-dominated grid cells while retaining more of the usable volume than the stricter thresholds. We therefore adopt $\tilde{\gamma}=0.6$ throughout this work.

Figure 7 shows the cross-correlation coefficient between the reconstructed field and the initial conditions, for networks trained at different redshifts and applied to a fixed target redshift. Models trained at different redshifts perform similarly, so the reconstruction is insensitive to the redshift of the training set. This supports our choice of training the network at a single fixed redshift and applying it to galaxy samples spanning a finite redshift range.

Figure 7 compares the cross-correlation coefficient of reconstructed fields from galaxy catalogs with different number densities, using networks trained on catalogs with different number densities. On the high-number-density catalog, the model trained at high number density clearly outperforms the model trained at low number density. On the low-number-density catalog, the two models perform comparably. We thus note that a model trained at high number density can therefore be applied to lower-density data, while the reverse is less effective.

A likely explanation is that training at high number density lets the network learn more of the small-scale nonlinear structure, which remains useful when applied to sparser data, while a network trained at low number density has less access to this information and struggles to recover it on a denser catalog. The degeneracy on the low-number-density catalog likely reflects a combination of effects including shot noise limits the available small-scale information, and standard reconstruction itself becomes less effective at low number density, propagating degraded input to the CNN. Because these effects are coupled, our controlled experiments cannot cleanly separate their individual contributions, and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this work.