Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Cosmology With Low-Redshift Observations: No Signal For New Physics

T0 review · 3 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 Low-redshift data alone favor the standard ΛCDM model, finding no compelling reason for new physics.

desk verdict A solid low-redshift re-analysis that mostly supports ΛCDM but overstates its Bayesian evidence and under-documents the fσ8 data that back the S8 claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07267 v2 pith:FCC45XHY submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th

Koushik Dutta , Anirban Roy , Ruchika , Anjan A Sen , M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th
keywords cosmologydarkenergyHubbletensionLambdaCDMBayesianevidencecosmicchronometersfσ8growthdataS8
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
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 reanalyzes a broad set of low-redshift cosmological observations—supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, strong-lensing time delays, megamaser distances, cosmic chronometer $H(z)$ data, and $f\sigma_8$ growth measurements—to ask whether the standard ΛCDM model is under pressure from the so-called Hubble tension. The authors find that when these datasets are combined without assuming a prior on the sound horizon, ΛCDM remains the best model by Bayesian evidence, with $H_0 = 70.3^{+1.36}_{-1.35}\,\mathrm{km/s/Mpc}$, a value within $2\sigma$ of both Planck and local distance-ladder measurements. They also derive $S_8 = 0.76 \pm 0.03$ from growth data, fully consistent with weak-lensing surveys. The conclusion is that low-redshift data alone give no compelling reason to invoke new physics beyond ΛCDM.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on two pieces: a multi-probe likelihood combining BAO, maser distances, strong-lensing time delays, Pantheon supernovae, cosmic chronometers, and the 'Gold-17' $f\sigma_8$ growth compilation, with the sound horizon $r_d$ kept as a free parameter; and a comparison of four dark-energy models via the Bayesian evidence $Z = \int P(D|\theta)P(\theta)\,d^N\theta$, using the Jeffreys scale to decide whether any extension is favored. The $f\sigma_8$ data are also used, under the assumption of GR, to map growth measurements into a constraint on $S_8 = \sigma_8\sqrt{\Omega_{m0}/0.3}$, which is then checked against lensing surveys.

What would settle it

A future local $H_0$ measurement with total uncertainty below 0.5 km/s/Mpc that remains near 74 km/s/Mpc would stand more than $5\sigma$ from the paper's central value of 70.3 km/s/Mpc, directly contradicting the claim that tensions stay within $2\sigma$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the apparent tensions between early- and late-universe measurements disappear once the late-universe data are analyzed on their own terms. Jointly fitting six low-redshift probes with the sound horizon scale at the drag epoch left free, the authors find parameter constraints that are stable across four dark-energy models (ΛCDM, wCDM, CPL, and a Padé expansion). For ΛCDM, the resulting Hubble constant is consistent at $2\sigma$ or better with Planck-2018, SH0ES, CCHP, and H0LiCOW-XIII, and the derived $S_8$ matches the KiDS+VIKING-450+DES-Y1 weak-lensing measurement. Comparing models via the Bayesian evidence, ΛCDM is favored, with wCDM decisively disfavored. The paper concludes that low-redshift observations do not require physics beyond the concordance model.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the reliability of the compiled $f\sigma_8$ growth measurements and the corrections applied to remove their dependence on an assumed fiducial cosmology; if those measurements carry correlated systematics, the derived $S_8$ and the consistency claim could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the Hubble tension is at least partly a product of how datasets are combined and calibrated; a single ΛCDM fit can satisfy both cosmic-microwave-background and local measurements within $2\sigma$.
  • The Bayesian-evidence comparison gives a concrete ranking: among the models tested, ΛCDM is preferred, and the simplest extension (constant-evolution wCDM) is decisively ruled out by these low-redshift data.
  • The consistency of the derived $S_8$ with weak-lensing surveys closes the second major reported tension (the '$S_8$ tension') for these datasets, implying no need for modified gravity or dark-matter interactions to explain it.
  • Because the analysis marginalizes over $r_d$, it provides a route to test early-universe physics without adopting a CMB prior on the sound horizon, which future BAO data can sharpen.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The paper's methodology suggests that the 'tension' may be reduced by treating the sound horizon as a free parameter; a testable extension would be to apply the same low-redshift combination to upcoming DESI or Euclid BAO data and check whether $r_d$ converges to the Planck value as precision improves.
  • Editorial inference: The fact that wCDM is decisively disfavored, even though it has more flexibility, indicates that the tension is not alleviated by simple smooth dark energy; a natural next test is whether early-dark-energy or interacting-dark-energy models, which the paper lists but does not fit, would be favored by the same Bayesian evidence.
  • Editorial inference: If future $f\sigma_8$ measurements with independent systematics push $S_8$ below about 0.72, the paper's conclusion about $S_8$ would be challenged, since the current consistency hinges on the growth compilation's fiducial corrections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes low-redshift cosmological data (BAO, megamaser distances, strong-lens time delays, Pantheon SNe, cosmic chronometers, and fσ8 growth data) for ΛCDM, wCDM, CPL, and a Pade dark-energy parameterization. It reports H0 = 70.3 ± 1.36 km/s/Mpc and S8 = 0.76 ± 0.03 for ΛCDM from the full BASE+CC+fσ8 combination, and uses Bayesian evidence to argue that ΛCDM remains preferred over the other models. The central conclusion is that ΛCDM is consistent within 2σ with Planck-2018, SH0ES, F19, H0LiCOW-XIII, and KiDS+VIKING+DES-Y1, so there is no compelling reason to go beyond concordance cosmology.

Significance. If the constraints are robust, the paper is a useful low-redshift-only cross-check of the Hubble and S8 tensions. The free-rd treatment and the decision not to include local H0 calibrators in the fit are genuine strengths, and the comparison of the derived S8 with weak-lensing surveys is a relevant addition to the literature. However, the strength of the 'no new physics' conclusion rests on two under-documented pillars: the fσ8 growth compilation that determines S8, and the Bayesian evidence calculation used to 'decisively' rule out wCDM. The H0LiCOW-XIII comparison is also not fully independent because the SL data used in the fit come from the same program. These issues do not invalidate the analysis, but they need to be addressed before the strong concluding claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, Table VI and Eq. (7)] The Bayesian evidence values in Table VI are used to state that wCDM is 'decisively ruled out' and that CPL and PADE are 'strongly disfavored' relative to ΛCDM, but the paper never specifies how Eq. (7) was evaluated, reports no convergence tests, and gives no numerical uncertainty on ln Z. Evidence estimates from MCMC chains can carry systematic errors comparable to the Jeffreys thresholds used here (Δln Z ≈ 2.5 and 5). Please state the estimator (e.g., nested sampling, thermodynamic integration, or a specific harmonic-mean variant), report the numerical error on ln Z, and show convergence checks; otherwise the model-comparison conclusion is unsupported.
  2. [Datasets used, fσ8 paragraph] The central S8 = 0.76 ± 0.03 result, which is load-bearing for the no-new-physics conclusion, is derived entirely from the Gold-17 fσ8 compilation, but the paper lists no individual fσ8 points, no covariance matrix, and no explicit fiducial-cosmology correction; it simply cites references [51,52]. If the growth measurements contain correlated systematics from overlapping surveys, the quoted 0.03 error could be underestimated and the claimed consistency with KiDS+VIKING+DES-Y1 could shift. Please provide the growth likelihood in full and include robustness tests (e.g., removing or downweighting individual surveys, varying the fiducial correction, adding a systematic floor) so that the precision and stability of the S8 constraint are demonstrated.
  3. [Results, Figure 3 and H0LiCOW-XIII comparison] The paper compares its derived H0 with H0LiCOW-XIII and reports 1.33σ tension, but the SL time-delay data used in the fit (Bonvin et al. 2017, three lens systems) are earlier H0LiCOW data that are part of the same six-lens H0LiCOW-XIII sample. The comparison is therefore not fully independent, and the quoted consistency is partly built into the fit. Please either repeat the H0 comparison without the SL data in the fit, or explicitly quantify the overlap and qualify the claim of consistency with H0LiCOW-XIII.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table V] In the Pade row for Q2, '0.0950.09' is missing a plus/minus sign; it should read '0.095 ± 0.09'.
  2. [Datasets used, SL bullet] There is a duplicated word in the strong-lensing bullet: 'hereafter hereafter'.
  3. [Introduction/Results] The units for the Hubble constant are inconsistently typeset as 'Km/s/Mpc' in most places and 'Km/S/Mpc' in a few places; please standardize to km/s/Mpc.
  4. [Abstract and Discussion] There is a missing space in 'H0LiCOW-XIIIsurements' in the Dataset section, and similar typographical slips appear elsewhere in the text; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [Results] The statement that Lyman-α BAO does not affect the H0rd constraint is supported by Figure 4, but no quantitative comparison of the with/without cases is given in the text; a sentence with numerical values would make the point more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper performs standard MCMC likelihood fits and compares them against independent external datasets.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are H0 = 70.3+1.36/-1.35 km/s/Mpc and S8 = 0.76 +/- 0.03 from a joint likelihood over the BASE+CC+f-sigma-8 data combination, with the sound horizon rd left free rather than imported from Planck. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as a prediction of a closely related quantity; the only 'predictions' are comparisons to external measurements (R19, F19, Planck-2018, H0LiCOW-XIII, KiDS+VIKING-450+DES-Y1) that are not inputs to the fit. The S8 constraint is derived from the f-sigma-8 growth data using the model relation f-sigma-8 ~ Omega_m^0.55 sigma_8, while the comparison target is a weak-lensing S8 measurement from independent surveys, so the reported consistency is not forced by construction. The free-rd treatment explicitly avoids circular use of the CMB sound horizon. The few self-references, such as [28] for negative cosmological constant motivation and [12] for a background rd tension statement, are contextual and are not load-bearing for the main derivation. The Bayesian evidence is computed from the same likelihoods with a standard Jeffreys scale, and the conclusion that LambdaCDM is preferred is a model-comparison outcome rather than an input assumption. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or data handling.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and does not invent ad hoc parameters; it fits the standard cosmological parameters of four dark energy models. The main unverified input is the Bayesian evidence estimator, which is never described.

free parameters (11)
  • Ωm0 (matter density parameter) = 0.29±0.013 (ΛCDM, full data)
    Matter density relative to critical; constrained by BAO, SN, and growth data in the MCMC fit.
  • H0 (Hubble constant) = 70.3±1.36 km/s/Mpc (ΛCDM, full data)
    Central expansion rate constraint; local H0 measurements excluded to avoid calibration bias.
  • σ8 (density fluctuation amplitude) = 0.77±0.03 (ΛCDM, full data)
    Amplitude of matter fluctuations on 8 Mpc/h scale; constrained by fσ8 growth data.
  • rd (sound horizon at drag epoch) = 144.71±2.9 Mpc (ΛCDM, full data)
    Treated as free to avoid imposing the Planck value; key to breaking the BAO H0-rd degeneracy.
  • w (wCDM equation of state) = -1.02±0.03 (with fσ8)
    Constant dark energy equation of state parameter in the wCDM model.
  • w0 (CPL parameter) = -0.97±0.07
    Present-day equation of state in the CPL parameterization.
  • wa (CPL parameter) = 0.56±0.38
    Time-varying coefficient in the CPL parameterization.
  • P1 (Pade parameter) = 2.55±1.58
    First numerator expansion coefficient of the (2,2) Pade model for dark energy density.
  • P2 (Pade parameter) = 0.67±2.11
    Second numerator expansion coefficient of the (2,2) Pade model.
  • Q1 (Pade parameter) = 2.41±1.69
    First denominator expansion coefficient of the (2,2) Pade model.
  • Q2 (Pade parameter) = 0.095±0.09
    Second denominator expansion coefficient of the (2,2) Pade model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The universe is described by a spatially flat FRW metric on the scales probed by the low-redshift data.
    Stated at the start of 'Modeling late time cosmology': 'we assume spatially flat FRW cosmology for the background universe.' This is a standard but nontrivial assumption; if spatial curvature were nonzero, all derived H0 and S8 constraints would shift.
  • domain assumption General relativity is the correct theory of gravity for interpreting growth data.
    The fσ8 data are converted to S8 using the GR growth approximation f ≈ Ωm^0.55, stated in the Discussion section. Modified gravity would change this relation and the derived S8.
  • domain assumption The data sets have independent, Gaussian errors as reported in the original compilations.
    The MCMC likelihoods sum chi-squared contributions from each data point; the paper does not model correlated or systematic errors beyond those quoted in the cited compilations.
  • domain assumption Dark energy models are restricted to the four parameterizations considered; no model with early-time new physics is tested.
    The paper only varies late-time dark energy; the conclusion 'no compelling reason to go beyond concordance ΛCDM' is scoped to these models and the chosen low-z data.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bayesian evidence integral (Eq. 7) is estimated reliably from the MCMC samples.
    Table VI reports LnZ values but the estimator and its convergence are not described; this is an unverified assumption in the model comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology With Low-Redshift Observations: No Signal For New Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCC45XHY

@misc{pith2026190807267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology With Low-Redshift Observations: No Signal For New Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCC45XHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07267}
}
abstract

We analyse various low-redshift cosmological data from Type-Ia Supernova, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, Time-Delay measurements using Strong-Lensing, $H(z)$ measurements using Cosmic Chronometers and growth measurements from large scale structure observations for $\Lambda$CDM and some different dark energy models. By calculating the Bayesian Evidence for different dark energy models, we find out that the $\Lambda$CDM still gives the best fit to the data with $H_{0}=70.3^{+1.36}_{-1.35}$ Km/s/Mpc (at $1\sigma$). This value is in $2\sigma$ or less tension with various low and high redshift measurements for $H_{0}$ including SH0ES, Planck-2018 and the recent results from H0LiCOW-XIII. The derived constraint on $S_{8}=\sigma_{8}\sqrt{{\Omega_{m0}}/{0.3}}$ from our analysis is $S_{8} = 0.76^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$, fully consistent with direct measurement of $S_{8}$ by KiDS+VIKING-450+DES1 survey. We hence conclude that the $\Lambda$CDM model with parameter constraints obtained in this work is consistent with different early and late Universe observations within $2\sigma$. We therefore, do not find any compelling reason to go beyond concordance $\Lambda$CDM model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Values of H0 with 1-σ error for several models stud￾ied in the work. The results are shown for different combina￾tions of data-sets studied. 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 rd[Mpc] 65.0 67.5 70.0 72.5 75.0 77.5 80.0 H0[kms −1Mpc −1 ] ΛCDM wCDM CP L P ADE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1σ and 2σ constrained contours in H0−rd parameter plane. The horizontal green band is 1σ constraints on H0 by R19. The horizontal (vertical) grey band is constraint on H0 (on rd) from Planck-2018. Here the “BASE+CC+fσ8” data sets is used. As noted in the Introduction, CMB measurements by Planck-2018 gives the sound horizon scale at drag epoch rd = 147.05 ± 0.30 Mpc. Using the low red-shifts data, we obtain rd = 144.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Values of H0rd (in Km/s) for different dark energy model. The data set used “BASE+CC”. Jeffrey’s scale for Bayesian Evidence to compare mod￾els. In particular if ∆LnZ between two models is more than 2.5, then the model with higher LnZ is strongly favoured compared to the model with lower LnZ and for ∆LnZ > 5, it is decisively favoured. In Table VI, we show the Bayesian evidence for different dark en￾ergy models: ΛCD… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 1σ and 2σ contours in (H0, S8) plane (Left Figure) and in (Ωm0, S8) (Right Figure) for different dark energy models. The grey band is 1σ bound for S8 from KiDS+VIKING-450+DES-Y1 survey results. The green band in the Left Figure is the 1σ bound on H0 from R19. Next, we …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Cosmological constraints and standard sirens forecasts for non-dynamical dark energy in Horndeski gravity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Standard sirens from third-generation detectors could measure H0 to 0.21% in Extended Cuscuton models, but the forecast omits the modified GW luminosity distance.

  2. Effect of Peak Absolute Magnitude of Type Ia Supernovae and Sound Horizon Values on Hubble Tension using DESI results

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using DESI DR1, Pantheon+ and cosmic chronometer data, the authors show that changing the Type Ia supernova absolute magnitude and sound-horizon priors moves the inferred H0 from about 73 to 68 km/s/Mpc, reducing the ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Komatsu et al

    E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Tegmark et al

    M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS), Phys. Rev. D69, 103501 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310723 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), (2018), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    and then the latest one in 2019 (R19)[8]. Their model independent measurement of the Hubble parameter at present isH0 = 74.03± 1.42 Km/s/Mpc which is in 4.4σ tension with the result H0 = 67.4± 0.5 Km/s/Mpc from the latest Planck-2018 [6] compilation for a concordance ΛCDM model. If one also combines the latest Strong- Lensing time-delay measurements of H0...

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

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

    arXiv 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016), arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess (2019) arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    K. C. Wong et al. , (2019), arXiv:1907.04869 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    BASE” denotes “BAO+MASERS+SL+SN

    irrespective of the dark energy model. This is in 3 σ tension with value obtained by Planck-2018 for ΛCDM. While the amount of tension depends on how one cali- brates BAO measurements, there is always a large ten- sion between high and low redshift observations either for H0 o...

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aubourg et al

    E. Aubourg et al. , Phys. Rev. D92, 123516 (2015), arXiv:1411.1074 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Evslin, A

    J. Evslin, A. A. Sen, and Ruchika, Phys. Rev. D97, 103511 (2018), arXiv:1711.01051 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Wu and D

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

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    W. D. Kenworthy, D. Scolnic, and A. Riess, Astrophys. J. 875, 145 (2019), arXiv:1901.08681 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    E. O. Colg´ ain, (2019), arXiv:1903.11743 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Boehringer, G

    H. Boehringer, G. Chon, and C. A. Collins, (2019), arXiv:1907.12402 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Smith et al

    M. Smith et al. (SDSS), Astrophys. J. 780, 24 (2014), arXiv:1307.2566 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Wyman, D

    M. Wyman, D. H. Rudd, R. A. Vanderveld, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 051302 (2014), arXiv:1307.7715 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    K. L. Pandey, T. Karwal, and S. Das, (2019), arXiv:1902.10636 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Vattis, S

    K. Vattis, S. M. Koushiappas, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D99, 121302 (2019), arXiv:1903.06220 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Zhao et al

    G.-B. Zhao et al. , Nat. Astron. 1, 627 (2017), arXiv:1701.08165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Zhang, D. Wang, Y. Qi, Y. Wang, and G.-B. Zhao, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 17, 050 (2017), arXiv:1703.08293 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, E. V. Linder, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D96, 023523 (2017), arXiv:1704.00762 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sola Peracaula, A

    J. Sola Peracaula, A. Gomez-Valent, and J. d. C. Perez, Phys. Dark Univ. 25, 100311 (2019), arXiv:1811.03505 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Di Valentino, R

    E. Di Valentino, R. Z. Ferreira, L. Visinelli, and U. Danielsson, (2019), arXiv:1906.11255 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. Obied, and C. Vafa, (2019), arXiv:1906.08261 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dutta et al

    K. Dutta et al. , (2018), arXiv:1808.06623 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Visinelli, S

    L. Visinelli, S. Vagnozzi, and U. Danielsson, Symmetry 11, 1035 (2019), arXiv:1907.07953 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. Shafieloo, (2019), arXiv:1906.08275 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Adhikari and D

    S. Adhikari and D. Huterer, (2019), arXiv:1905.02278 [astro-ph.CO] . 8

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Desmond, B

    H. Desmond, B. Jain, and J. Sakstein, (2019), arXiv:1907.03778 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kazantzidis and L

    L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos, (2019), arXiv:1907.03176 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    W. L. Freedman et al. , (2019), arXiv:1907.05922 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    W. Yuan, A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. Casertano, and D. Scolnic, (2019), arXiv:1908.00993 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008 [gr-qc]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  32. [40]

    T. D. Saini, S. Raychaudhury, V. Sahni, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1162 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910231 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley- Smith, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, and F. Watson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 3017 (2011), arXiv:1106.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden, and M. Manera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, 835 (2015), arXiv:1409.3242 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ata et al

    M. Ata et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 473, 4773 (2018), arXiv:1705.06373 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Alam et al

    S. Alam et al. (BOSS), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470, 2617 (2017), arXiv:1607.03155 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    du Mas des Bourboux et al

    H. du Mas des Bourboux et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 608, A130 (2017), arXiv:1708.02225 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. J. Reid, J. A. Braatz, J. J. Condon, L. J. Greenhill, C. Henkel, and K. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 695, 287 (2009), arXiv:0811.4345 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. J. Reid, J. A. Braatz, J. J. Condon, K. Y. Lo, C. Y. Kuo, C. M. V. Impellizzeri, and C. Henkel, Astrophys. J. 767, 154 (2013), arXiv:1207.7292 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. Kuo, J. A. Braatz, M. J. Reid, F. K. Y. Lo, J. J. Con- don, C. M. V. Impellizzeri, and C. Henkel, Astrophys. J. 767, 155 (2013), arXiv:1207.7273 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    F. Gao, J. A. Braatz, M. J. Reid, K. Y. Lo, J. J. Con- don, C. Henkel, C. Y. Kuo, C. M. V. Impellizzeri, D. W. Pesce, and W. Zhao, Astrophys. J. 817, 128 (2016), arXiv:1511.08311 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. J. Reid, D. W. Pesce, and A. G. Riess, (2019), arXiv:1908.05625 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bonvin et al

    V. Bonvin et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 465, 4914 (2017), arXiv:1607.01790 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    G´ omez-Valent and L

    A. G´ omez-Valent and L. Amendola, JCAP 1804, 051 (2018), arXiv:1802.01505 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nesseris, G

    S. Nesseris, G. Pantazis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D96, 023542 (2017), arXiv:1703.10538 [astro- ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kazantzidis and L

    L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D97, 103503 (2018), arXiv:1803.01337 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    de Sainte Agathe et al

    V. de Sainte Agathe et al. , (2019), arXiv:1904.03400 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hildebrandt et al

    H. Hildebrandt et al. , (2018), arXiv:1812.06076 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Joudaki et al., (2019), arXiv:1906.09262 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Joudaki et al., (2019), arXiv:1906.09262 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    K. Liao, A. Shafieloo, R. E. Keeley, and E. V. Linder, (2019), arXiv:1908.04967 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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