Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Einstein-Vlasov Calculations of Structure Formation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Full general-relativistic N-body calculations show Newtonian gravity accurately predicts structure formation for cosmological perturbations, diverging only at relativistic extremes.

desk verdict First Einstein-Vlasov structure-formation runs through halo formation; solid Newtonian/GR comparison, but the H0 cosmic-variance conclusion overreaches the single-mode setup. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05683 v2 pith:PVAWIGMC submitted 2019-08-15 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

William E. East , Rados{l}aw Wojtak , Frans Pretorius This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords Einstein-VlasovequationsNewtonianN-bodysimulationsstructureformationgeneralrelativitycosmicvarianceHubbleconstanttensionbackreactionluminositydistance
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

This paper tests the standard tool of cosmological structure formation, Newtonian N-body simulations, against full solutions of the Einstein-Vlasov equations, which treat dark matter as collisionless particles coupled to general relativity. Using simplified single-wavelength density perturbations scaled from small to extreme amplitudes, it finds that the two descriptions agree to subpercent accuracy for perturbations of cosmological size, all the way into the nonlinear regime where halos form. At amplitudes far beyond standard cosmology, the Newtonian runs collapse overdense regions faster than the fully relativistic runs, and the gap widens as the gravitational potential approaches unity; even then, the expansion and light propagation outside the strong-field regions stay close between the two methods. The result matters because it validates the Newtonian basis of large-scale structure predictions and implies that general-relativistic corrections to the local measurement of the Hubble constant, through cosmic variance, are negligible.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Einstein-Vlasov system, collisionless matter particles moving on a dynamically evolved spacetime, as the fully relativistic counterpart to Newtonian N-body gravity. The comparison is carried by a Newtonian-to-GR dictionary that maps the same Zel'dovich initial displacements into constraint-satisfying relativistic initial data, and by observables defined with respect to fiducial observers: the density contrast as a function of proper time and the luminosity-distance-versus-redshift relation of null geodesics. This lets the two simulations be compared in a way that avoids coordinate artifacts and continues past shell crossing, which is where fluid treatments break down.

What would settle it

Run a matched pair of Newtonian and Einstein-Vlasov simulations with a realistic $\Lambda$CDM power spectrum on Gpc scales, using adaptive mesh refinement around the first collapsed halos, and compare halo collapse times and $D_L(z)$ in regions where the Newtonian potential is below $|\psi|=0.1$; if the differences there exceed the subpercent level found here, the paper's central conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a quantitative, gauge-aware comparison: for initial density contrasts $\bar\delta\times 10^2=0.25$, $0.5$, $1$, and $5$ with a wavelength four times the initial Hubble radius, the Newtonian and Einstein-Vlasov evolutions produce nearly identical density contrasts along fiducial observers and nearly identical distance-redshift relations, with differences typically below about one percent and consistent with truncation error, as long as the Newtonian potential stays below $|\psi|\sim 0.1$. When the inhomogeneity is pushed to the extreme limit, collapse at the overdensity occurs earlier in Newtonian gravity and infall velocities become relativistic, while the fully relativistic solution continues toward black hole formation; nevertheless, the void region and the global expansion remain close. The paper claims that this bounds relativistic backreaction and validates standard Newtonian N-body methods for observations at cosmological scales, including estimates of cosmic variance in $H_0$.

Load-bearing premise

The broad conclusions assume that a single-wavelength sinusoidal perturbation, rather than a realistic spectrum of fluctuations, captures the relativistic corrections that matter in real cosmology; if mode coupling or small-scale nonlinearities change those corrections, the validation of Newtonian simulations would not automatically extend.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Newtonian N-body simulations are validated for large-scale perturbations at standard cosmological amplitudes, with general-relativistic corrections below about one percent.
  • General-relativistic corrections to cosmic variance in the local Hubble constant are negligible, so the roughly nine percent tension between local and CMB-based $H_0$ measurements cannot be explained by cosmic variance.
  • In the strong-field regime, full general relativity slows the collapse of overdense regions relative to Newtonian gravity, with the discrepancy growing as potentials approach unity.
  • Outside the high-density, high-velocity regions, void evolution and light propagation remain close between the two methods, bounding the possible backreaction of nonlinear structures on the global expansion.
  • Treating matter as particles in the Einstein-Vlasov framework allows the comparison to continue through multistream regions, where pressureless fluid descriptions break down.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-wavelength idealization hides mode coupling, a realistic-spectrum Einstein-Vlasov run could reveal general-relativistic corrections larger than subpercent on small scales; the paper's conclusion is therefore conditional on the shape of the power spectrum.
  • The delay of collapse in full general relativity suggests an effective relativistic slowdown of infall that may matter for primordial black hole formation in a matter-dominated era, where densities reach the extreme amplitudes studied here.
  • The same fiducial-observer comparison could be extended to redshift-space distortions or weak lensing, where subpercent relativistic corrections may become observable with next-generation surveys.
  • A realistic-spectrum extension would also test whether the near-identical void evolution seen here persists when the void is surrounded by many nonlinear halos rather than a single sinusoidal perturbation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper performs fully general-relativistic Einstein-Vlasov (collisionless N-body) simulations of structure formation and compares them with standard Newtonian N-body simulations (GADGET-2) on matched initial conditions. The initial conditions are sinusoidal density perturbations along each Cartesian axis at a single wavelength, with amplitudes ranging from near-LCDM values up to extreme super-LCDM cases. The authors compare density contrasts at maxima and minima, infall trajectories of fiducial particles, and luminosity distance--redshift relations along null geodesics. They find that for small amplitudes the Newtonian and GR calculations agree at the subpercent level, while for large amplitudes the Newtonian collapse occurs faster, with differences concentrated near regions of large gravitational potential and relativistic infall velocities. The paper concludes that Newtonian N-body simulations are strongly validated for standard cosmological structures and that GR corrections to the cosmic variance in the local Hubble constant are negligible.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable step beyond earlier fluid-based GR structure-formation simulations, because the Einstein-Vlasov treatment remains valid through multistreaming and halo formation. The methodology is careful: there are no free parameters fitted to the results; the Newtonian reference uses the public, well-tested GADGET-2 code; the GR code has been independently applied to black-hole formation; and the appendix reports convergence tests for constraints, crossing times, and luminosity distances. The main limitation is external validity: the idealized single-wavelength initial conditions do not automatically bound the multi-scale, statistically homogeneous density fields relevant to cosmic-variance claims. This gap affects the strongest concluding statements but is fixable by more cautious wording or an additional argument.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV and Abstract] The concluding claim that GR corrections to the Newtonian calculation of cosmic variance in the local Hubble constant are negligible is not supported by the evidence presented. The simulations (Eq. (1)) begin with a single sinusoidal density perturbation per Cartesian axis, with no power spectrum and no modes below the initial wavelength. Cosmic variance in H0 is an ensemble property of a multi-mode, statistically homogeneous density field, and the paper does not provide an argument that the single-mode configuration bounds the multi-mode case. In fact, the paper itself states that tackling a more realistic power spectrum will require adaptive mesh refinement and further work. This is a load-bearing external-validity gap: the abstract's 'standard cosmological values' conclusion rests on it. I recommend either softening the conclusion to the configurations studied or adding a quantitative argument (e.g., mode-coupling/backreaction estimates) connecting the single-mode results to realistic spectra.
  2. [Section IV and Fig. 4] The quantity actually computed is the fractional difference in DL(z) along a small set of null rays between the maximum and minimum density points, not an estimator of the cosmic variance in a local H0 measurement. The inference from subpercent differences in these DL(z) curves to 'negligible' GR corrections to H0 cosmic variance involves an additional assumption: that these rays and this symmetric configuration are representative of the averaging volume and observer selection relevant to local H0 measurements. No direct computation of an H0 estimator in both frameworks is given. Since this is presented as a strengthening of the Hubble-constant tension discussion, the link should either be made explicit or the conclusion should be restricted to the observables actually simulated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Author list / title page] The second author's name appears as 'Rados/suppress law Wojtak'; this is clearly a corruption and should be corrected to the proper spelling.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The left-column label 'D_L/D_LFRW L - 1' is garbled and should be rewritten, for example as 'D_L/D_LFRW - 1'.
  3. [Section II.C] The description of the GR initial conditions says particle positions are obtained 'by starting from a uniform lattice ... and then displacing each particle slightly according to the Zel'dovich approximation' with a reference to Eq. (31) of Ref. [24], but the precise relation to the Newtonian dictionary and the mass-rescaling correction is only sketched. A reader would benefit from one or two more equations showing how the GR density and metric are fixed.
  4. [Appendix, Fig. 8] The resolution comparison uses different particle numbers for the GR and Newtonian runs at each 'resolution' (e.g., GR N=192^3 vs Newtonian N=128^3 at low resolution), which complicates the interpretation of the plotted differences; the text should state whether this mismatch is deliberate and how it affects the truncation-error estimate.
  5. [Figure labels throughout] The abbreviations 'Newt. UD->OD', 'GR UD->OD', etc. are not defined in the captions; they should be spelled out at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GR-vs-Newtonian comparison is a genuine numerical experiment with no fitted parameters and no conclusion defined by its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the outcome of a numerical comparison between fully general-relativistic Einstein-Vlasov evolution and standard Newtonian N-body evolution. Initial conditions are specified independently (single-wavelength sinusoidal density contrast and Zel'dovich velocities, Eqs. 1-2), mapped to GR initial data via the external dictionary of Refs. [24,25] (Chisari-Zaldarriaga and Green-Wald), and then the full Einstein constraint equations are solved. The Newtonian reference uses the public GADGET-2 code, so the comparison is not defined in terms of the conclusions it reaches. Diagnostic quantities such as delta_obs, the proper-time scale factor a_p, and D_L(z) are defined as reparameterizations or observables, not fitted to the final result. The overlapping-author citations ([7], [23], [36]) are methodological: they supply the GR evolution scheme and comparison dictionary, and the appendix provides independent resolution and convergence checks. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is imported from prior work. The paper explicitly limits its conclusions to idealized single-wavelength initial conditions and notes that a realistic power spectrum requires adaptive mesh refinement, so the extrapolation to 'negligible GR corrections to cosmic variance in H0' is a modeling-validity concern rather than a circular derivation. Therefore no circularity is present.

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

The paper introduces no fitted free parameters and no invented entities. Its central claims rest on an external Newtonian-GR dictionary, an existing Einstein-Vlasov code, and idealized single-scale initial conditions. The most fragile inputs are the dictionary and the representativeness of the initial conditions, both acknowledged in the text.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dictionary of Refs. [24, 25] accurately maps Newtonian initial conditions to general-relativistic initial data and back, including for the large-amplitude cases.
    Used in Sec. II.A to seed GR initial data and in Sec. II.D to reconstruct an effective spacetime for Newtonian light propagation; an inaccurate mapping would bias the comparison.
  • domain assumption The Einstein-Vlasov code of Ref. [23] correctly solves the coupled Einstein and Vlasov equations to the stated order of accuracy.
    The GR results depend entirely on this code; the paper provides constraint convergence tests (Appendix) and prior black-hole formation applications, but no independent verification here.
  • domain assumption The Zel'dovich approximation, with small particle-mass corrections, provides sufficiently accurate initial displacements and velocities for both simulations.
    Used in Sec. II.B and II.C; the mass corrections are meant to remove residual second-order density errors.
  • ad hoc to paper The idealized single-wavelength initial conditions are representative of the physics governing cosmic variance in the local Hubble rate and of the relativistic corrections that matter for large-scale structure.
    These initial conditions are chosen for computational expediency (Sec. II.A); the concluding claims about Newtonian robustness and H0 cosmic variance rely on this representativeness.
  • domain assumption The density estimators (tetrahedral tessellation and CIC) provide adequate density fields for the comparison in multistream regions.
    Sec. II.B notes the estimators have known resolution sensitivity in halo centers; the paper compares both estimators to mitigate this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Einstein-Vlasov Calculations of Structure Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVAWIGMC

@misc{pith2026190805683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Einstein-Vlasov Calculations of Structure Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVAWIGMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05683}
}
read the original abstract

We study the dynamics of small inhomogeneities in an expanding universe collapsing to form bound structures using full solutions of the Einstein-Vlasov (N-body) equations. We compare these to standard Newtonian N-body solutions using quantities defined with respect to fiducial observers in order to bound relativistic effects. We focus on simplified initial conditions containing a limited range of length scales, but vary the inhomogeneities from small magnitude, where the Newtonian and general-relativistic calculations agree quite well, to large magnitude, where the background metric receives an order one correction. For large inhomogeneities, we find that the collapse of overdensities tends to happen faster in Newtonian calculations relative to fully general-relativistic ones. Even in this extreme regime, the differences in the spacetime evolution outside the regions of large gravitational potential and velocity are small. For standard cosmological values, we corroborate the robustness of Newtonian N-body simulations to model large scale perturbations and the related cosmic variance in the local expansion rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Top: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The coordinate distances from the point of maximum de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Differences in the coordinate distances between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The fractional difference in the luminosity distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Results for the highest amplitude perturbation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Similar to the top right panel of Fig. 2 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    H. J. Macpherson, P. D. Lasky, and D. J. Price, Phys. Rev. D95, 064028 (2017), 10 0 20 40 60 80 ap −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 −dHigh res. OD /L d Low res. OD /L GR 0 20 40 60 80 ap −0.2 −0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 −dHigh res. OD /L d Low res. OD /L Newtonian FIG. 7. Similar to the top right panel of Fig. 2 ( ¯δ = 0. 01), but showing the dependence of resolution. The top ...

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Bentivegna and M

    E. Bentivegna and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 251302 (2016), arXiv:1511.05124 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    emitted” and subsequently “observed

    is just a constant that sets the overall scale of our initial conditions, δobs(ap) is just a convenient reparameterization of density as a function of proper time. We also measure properties of the spacetimes using null geodesics which are “emitted” and subsequently “observed” by fiducial timelike observers. If ka is the four momentum of the null geodesic ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Fully relativistic nonlinear cosmological evolution in spherical symmetry using the BSSN formalism

    J. Rekier, I. Cordero-Carri´ on, and A. F¨ uzfa, Phys. Rev. D91, 024025 (2015), arXiv:1409.3476 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    J. T. Giblin, J. B. Mertens, and G. D. Starkman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 251301 (2016), arXiv:1511.01105 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    (2) These initial conditions have a maximum over- density at (0 , 0, 0) and maximum underdensity at (π/k,π/k,π/k )

    The initial velocity is given by the Zel’dovich ap- proximation [26] vi =H0δi cos(kxi)/k . (2) These initial conditions have a maximum over- density at (0 , 0, 0) and maximum underdensity at (π/k,π/k,π/k ). As described in detail in Ref. [7], fully general- relativistic initial data are calculated using the dic- tionary of Refs. [24, 25] to determine the ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    J. T. Giblin, J. B. Mertens, and G. D. Starkman, Astrophys. J. 833, 247 (2016), arXiv:1608.04403 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    A numerical relativity scheme for cosmological simulations

    D. Daverio, Y. Dirian, and E. Mitsou, (2016), arXiv:1611.03437 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    W. E. East, R. Wojtak, and T. Abel, Phys. Rev. D97, 043509 (2018), arXiv:1711.06681 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    H. J. Macpherson, D. J. Price, and P. D. Lasky, Phys. Rev. D99, 063522 (2019), arXiv:1807.01711 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. T. Giblin, J. B. Mertens, G. D. Stark- man, and C. Tian, Phys. Rev. D99, 023527 (2019), arXiv:1810.05203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Daverio, Y

    D. Daverio, Y. Dirian, and E. Mitsou, (2019), arXiv:1904.07841 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Buchert, Gen

    T. Buchert, Gen. Rel. Grav. 32, 105 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9906015 [gr-qc]. 10-2 10-1 100 101 z 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 |D Newt. L /D GR L − 1| OD to UD aem ≈ 1 High Res. aem ≈ 1 Low Res. aem ≈ 28 aem ≈ 43 aem ≈ 52 10-2 10-1 100 101 z 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 |D Newt. L /D GR L − ...

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    E. W. Kolb, S. Matarrese, A. Notari, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D71, 023524 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0409038 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Rasanen, Class

    S. Rasanen, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 164008 (2011), arXiv:1102.0408 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ishibashi and R

    A. Ishibashi and R. M. Wald, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 235 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0509108 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. R. Green and R. M. Wald, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 234003 (2014), arXiv:1407.8084 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Laureijs, J

    R. Laureijs, J. Amiaux, S. Arduini, J. . Augu` eres, J. Brinchmann, R. Cole, M. Cropper, C. Dabin, 11 L. Duvet, A. Ealet, and et al., ArXiv e-prints (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, ArXiv e- prints (2012), arXiv:1211.0310 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Collaboration, ArXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1708.01530

    D. Collaboration, ArXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1708.01530

    2017 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Schneider, R

    A. Schneider, R. Teyssier, D. Potter, J. Stadel, J. Onions, D. S. Reed, R. E. Smith, V. Springel, F. R. Pearce, and R. Scoccimarro, JCAP 1604, 047 (2016), arXiv:1503.05920 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Adamek, D

    J. Adamek, D. Daverio, R. Durrer, and M. Kunz, Nature Phys. 12, 346 (2016), arXiv:1509.01699 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Barrera-Hinojosa and B

    C. Barrera-Hinojosa and B. Li, (2019), arXiv:1905.08890 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Pretorius and W

    F. Pretorius and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D98, 084053 (2018), arXiv:1807.11562 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [26]

    N. E. Chisari and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D83, 123505 (2011), [Erra- tum: Phys. Rev.D84,089901(2011)], arXiv:1101.3555 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [27]

    S. R. Green and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D85, 063512 (2012), arXiv:1111.2997 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, Astron. Astrophys. 5, 84 (1970)

    1970

  20. [29]

    W. E. East, F. M. Ramazanoglu, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D86, 104053 (2012), arXiv:1208.3473 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Springel, Mon

    V. Springel, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 364, 1105 (2005), astro-ph/0505010

    2005 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Xu, Astrophys

    G. Xu, Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser. 98, 355 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9409021 [astro-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Heitmann, Z

    K. Heitmann, Z. Luki´ c, P. Fasel, S. Habib, M. S. Warren, M. White, J. Ahrens, L. Ankeny, R. Armstrong, and B. O’Shea, Computational Science and Discovery 1, 015003 (2008), arXiv:0706.1270 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [33]

    J.-h. Kim, T. Abel, O. Agertz, G. L. Bryan, D. Ceverino, C. Christensen, C. Conroy, A. Dekel, N. Y. Gnedin, and N. J. Gold- baum, Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser. 210, 14 (2014), arXiv:1308.2669 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014

  25. [34]

    Heitmann, P

    K. Heitmann, P. M. Ricker, M. S. Warren, and S. Habib, Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser. 160, 28 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411795 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Shandarin, S

    S. Shandarin, S. Habib, and K. Heitmann, Phys. Rev. D 85, 083005 (2012), arXiv:1111.2366

    2012 arXiv

  27. [36]

    T. Abel, O. Hahn, and R. Kaehler, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 427, 61 (2012), arXiv:1111.3944

    2012 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Hahn and R

    O. Hahn and R. E. Angulo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 1115 (2016), arXiv:1501.01959 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [38]

    W. E. East, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 231103 (2019), arXiv:1901.04498 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [39]

    I. M. H. Etherington, General Relativity and Gravitation 39, 1055 (2007)

    2007

  31. [40]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, and D. Scolnic, Astrophys. J. 876, 85 (2019), arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Wojtak, A

    R. Wojtak, A. Knebe, W. A. Watson, I. T. Iliev, S. Heß, D. Rapetti, G. Yepes, and S. Gottl¨ ober, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 438, 1805 (2014), arXiv:1312.0276 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Wu and D

    H.-Y. Wu and D. Huterer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 471, 4946 (2017), arXiv:1706.09723 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Odderskov, S

    I. Odderskov, S. Hannestad, and T. Haugbølle, JCAP 1410, 028 (2014), arXiv:1407.7364 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [44]

    H. J. Macpherson, P. D. Lasky, and D. J. Price, Astrophys. J. Lett. 865, L4 (2018), arXiv:1807.01714 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [45]

    B. Carr, T. Tenkanen, and V. Vasko- nen, Phys. Rev. D96, 063507 (2017), arXiv:1706.03746 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Braden, M

    J. Braden, M. C. Johnson, H. V. Peiris, and A. Aguirre, Phys. Rev. D96, 023541 (2017), arXiv:1604.04001 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [47]

    D. J. Schwarz, C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, and G. D. Starkman, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 184001 (2016), arXiv:1510.07929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [48]

    , arXiv e-prints (2009), arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]

    LSST Science Collaboration et al. , arXiv e-prints (2009), arXiv:0912.0201 [astro-ph.IM]

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.