Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Looking beyond lambda

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that LambdaCDM is cracking under the combined weight of the Hubble tension and DESI BAO data, and that cosmology must prepare to move beyond it.

desk verdict A candid, well-hedged perspective that argues the field should prepare for beyond-LambdaCDM, but leans more on DESI's parametrization-dependent w0wa signal than the robustness warrants. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00359 v1 pith:FNIADAHL submitted 2025-08-30 astro-ph.CO

Alexie Leauthaud , Adam Riess This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x95.35.+d
keywords LambdaCDMHubbletensiondarkenergybaryonacousticoscillationsequationofstatephantomcrossingcosmologicaltensionsmatter
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 perspective argues that the standard cosmological model, LambdaCDM, is no longer able to describe the full expansion history of the Universe. It points to two main cracks: a long-standing 5-6 sigma mismatch between locally measured and CMB-predicted values of the Hubble constant, and DESI baryon acoustic oscillation data which, combined with Planck CMB and supernova measurements, disfavor LambdaCDM at the 2.8-4.2 sigma level and favor dark energy whose equation of state changes with time, including a possible past phantom phase with w<-1. The authors maintain that these tensions are unlikely to dissolve into systematics, since independent replications have found no measurement errors and BAO are widely believed to be robust to most systematics. If the cracks are real, the dark sector (about 95% of the Universe) is more complex than the simplest model assumes, and cosmology will need a new research roadmap and new scientific practices to move beyond a simple test of w=-1.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two observational anchors: the local distance-ladder measurement of H0 (Cepheid and TRGB-calibrated Type Ia supernovae, cross-checked by JWST and independent methods) versus the CMB-predicted H0; and DESI's baryon acoustic oscillation measurements over redshift 0.1<z<3.5. The quantitative engine is the w0wa parametrization of the dark energy equation of state, w(z)=w0+wa z/(1+z); fitting it to BAO+CMB+SNe produces a time-varying w with a phantom crossing, which is why the paper says testing w=-1 is no longer sufficient. The H0 tension plays a second load-bearing role as a constraint any replacement model must satisfy, and the paper uses it to argue that simple dyna

What would settle it

One decisive check would be to find a single unaccounted systematic in the distance ladder—for example, an offset in the Cepheid or TRGB calibration of supernova absolute magnitudes that shifts local H0 downward by about 5 km/s/Mpc toward the CMB-predicted value—or a correlated error in DESI's BAO scale that erases the preference for time-varying w. Alternatively, if a future DESI data release combined with full-shape, lensing, and independent BAO data finds w consistent with -1 to high precision, while independent local H0 measurements converge to the CMB value, the claimed tensions would be

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the cracks in LambdaCDM are real and growing. The authors argue that DESI's DR2 BAO measurements, when combined with Planck CMB data and Type Ia supernova samples, favor a dynamical dark energy whose equation-of-state parameter w varies with time, and the fit suggests w dipped below -1 in the past (a phantom phase) before crossing the phantom divide around z~0.5. They stress two caveats from the data itself: the evidence for w≠-1 is stronger than the evidence for phantom crossing, and models with non-flat spatial curvature can also describe the BAO data. At the same time, dynamical dark energy does not solve the Hubble tension; it makes it worse. The conclus

Load-bearing premise

The entire case rests on the assumption that the DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements and the local Hubble constant measurements are not hiding an unknown systematic error; if such an error appears in either dataset, the cracks would close and the argument for moving beyond LambdaCDM would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future Stage IV and Stage V surveys will need to measure w(z) as a function of time, not just test whether w=-1, since the current DESI+ data favor a dark energy whose equation of state varies.
  • The Hubble tension will keep growing in importance if new data from JWST, the Simons Observatory, Rubin, and Euclid sharpen both sides of the discrepancy, forcing any dark-sector model to fit the full BAO+CMB+SNe+local-H0 combination.
  • A new dark energy task force should be convened to build a post-LambdaCDM roadmap, analogous to the 2006 roadmap that defined survey stages.
  • Scientific practice in cosmology should shift toward training and rewarding large-team, cross-survey analyses, because the next breakthroughs are likely to require combining multiple Stage IV datasets.
  • Models beyond quintessence—early dark energy, interacting dark matter-dark energy, or modified gravity—deserve priority attention because simple single-field models fail to fit all datasets simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the phantom-crossing signal is the most fragile part of the DESI finding; a natural extension is to watch how its significance evolves in DESI DR3/DR4 and in independent BAO measurements from Euclid and the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph. If it fades, the case for an exotic dark sector weakens even if time-varying w persists.
  • One could extend the paper's call by proposing non-parametric or feature-allowable reconstructions of w(z), since the w0wa parametrization assumes a smooth monotonic form and could miss rapid transitions or multiple dark-energy fields that the authors mention as possibilities.
  • If the field follows the recommendation for a new task force, a concrete deliverable would be community-agreed model-comparison metrics—such as Bayesian evidence or cross-validation—applied uniformly to LambdaCDM, w0wa, early dark energy, interacting dark energy, and curvature-relaxed models; no single survey currently provides this.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This perspective piece by Leauthaud and Riess argues that the standard cosmological model ΛCDM is showing 'widening cracks' and that the community should prepare for a possible post-Λ era. The evidence cited is the persistent Hubble constant tension (Section 4) and the DESI BAO+CMB+SNe preference for a time-varying dark energy equation of state, including a tentative phantom crossing (Sections 5–6). The authors also list additional anomalies (S8, CMB quadrupole, JWST high-redshift galaxies, etc.) and recommend a new dark energy task force and cultural changes to support cross-survey analyses. No new data or original quantitative analysis are presented; the paper is a synthesis and call to action. The manuscript repeatedly hedges its strongest claims, noting that the phantom-crossing evidence is tentative, that dynamical dark energy does not solve the Hubble tension, and that curvature models can describe the same data.

Significance. If the empirical case holds up, the paper provides a useful and readable synthesis of the current tensions and a reasonable argument for diversifying beyond ΛCDM. Its value lies in agenda-setting rather than new results. The authors deserve credit for explicitly acknowledging that the DESI signal varies with dataset choice, that the phantom crossing is not robust, and that dynamical dark energy actually worsens the H0 discrepancy. These caveats make the perspective more balanced than a simple 'death of ΛCDM' narrative. The main risk is that the paper leans on two empirical pillars—the H0 tension and the DESI dynamical dark energy signal—whose interpretation is still actively debated; the paper occasionally states these pillars more definitively than the cited evidence supports.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4] The statement that 'years of rigorous scrutiny and independent replication on both sides ... have failed to find any measurement errors while further reinforcing the conflict' is an overstatement. The cited review [10] and subsequent works demonstrate that no single known systematic has been identified, but the absence of identified errors does not exclude unknown or correlated systematics. The manuscript itself later concedes 'there is still more observational work to be done.' Because the H0 tension is the paper's first and most persistent pillar, this sentence should be softened (e.g., 'no common systematic has been identified') to avoid making the empirical case appear stronger than it is.
  2. [Sections 5–6 and Figure 2] The dynamical dark energy evidence is presented through the w0wa parametrization w(z)=w0+wa z/(1+z) shown in Figure 2. The paper notes that the significance varies between 2.8σ and 4.2σ with the SNe sample and that phantom crossing is tentative, but it does not engage with the possibility that the two-parameter ansatz itself may project a more complex true w(z) into a spurious deviation. Non-parametric reconstructions and alternative model fits that do not require w≠−1 are not discussed, even though they directly bear on the central claim that 'recent results suggest a dark sector that may be more complex.' Adding a sentence acknowledging this parametrization dependence and citing representative non-parametric analyses would make the argument more accurate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] Typo: 'gravitionally' should be 'gravitationally.'
  2. [Section 5] The sentence 'BAO measurements are widely believed to be robust to most kinds of systematics' is an empirical claim without a citation. Either add a reference or soften to 'are generally considered robust.'
  3. [Section 6] The statement that 'simple models (e.g. quintessence) fail to describe the full suite of data' is in tension with the immediately preceding acknowledgement that [27–29] allow curvature+quintessence to describe the BAO data. Clarify that such models do not simultaneously address the local H0 measurement, which is presumably what 'full suite' means here.
  4. [Section 9] Minor language issues: 'luminesce sector' should be 'luminous sector'; 'haphazardous' is non-standard and should be 'haphazard.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper interprets external data and explicitly labels dark-energy model fits as customized, not predictions.

full rationale

This is a perspective article, not a derivation. Its central claim—that cracks are appearing in LambdaCDM and the community should prepare for a possible post-Lambda era—is an interpretation of externally published results from DESI, Planck, SPT/ACT, supernova samples, and independent H0 measurements. The paper performs no fitting, derives no equations, and imports no uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work. The closest potential concern is that author Adam Riess is a leading source of local H0 measurements cited in Section 4, but the paper grounds the Hubble tension in a broad set of independent methods and reviews (e.g., Verde et al. 2024, JWST/Cepheid/TRGB comparisons, time delays, Tully-Fisher) rather than relying on a single in-house derivation. Similarly, the discussion of DESI dynamical dark energy explicitly acknowledges that the dynamical model is 'customized to do the job' rather than predicted, and the paper notes that the phantom-crossing evidence is tentative and that curvature models can also describe the data. These are honest caveats, not circular reasoning. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation chain, to its own inputs. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new measurements or derivations. It relies on the validity of published results from DESI, Planck, SPT, ACT, HST, JWST, and others, and on the assumption that current tensions are not dominated by systematics.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Hubble tension is not due to unknown systematics.
    Section 4 asserts that years of independent replication have failed to find measurement errors, but this is an empirical claim that could change.
  • domain assumption DESI BAO measurements are robust to systematics.
    Section 5 states that BAO measurements are widely believed to be robust, which underpins the case for dynamical dark energy.
  • domain assumption LambdaCDM is the standard model used for interpreting current cosmological data.
    The paper relies on LambdaCDM as the baseline model for defining tensions, which is the accepted framework in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Looking beyond lambda." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNIADAHL

@misc{pith2026250900359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Looking beyond lambda},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNIADAHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00359}
}
abstract

Widening cracks are appearing in the $\Lambda$CDM model and it is becoming increasingly clear that the standard cosmological model struggles to describe the full expansion history of the Universe as revealed by the Cosmic Microwave Background, Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements, and locally calibrated Type Ia supernovae. Taken at face value, recent results suggest a dark sector that may be more complex than commonly assumed. We must prepare for the possibility of moving beyond the $\Lambda$CDM era, where merely testing $w=-1$ is no longer sufficient, and embrace the challenge of unraveling the physics of dark matter, dark energy and gravity on cosmic scales. Guided by increasingly robust data - secured through considerable investment - we should pursue deeper understanding while being open to complexity in the dark sector, rather than settling for the simplest phenomenology. New data from new facilities and a new dark energy task force could help illuminate the path forward while changes to our scientific practices will be essential to navigate the potentially rocky road ahead.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Reduction of the Finsler gravity vacuum equation and dynamics for the cosmological Landsberg spacetimes

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Finsler gravity vacuum equation reduces to vanishing Finsler Ricci curvature when some power F^n is regular with non-degenerate metric on light cones and Landsberg term vanishes, enabling solutions for homogeneous iso...

  2. Cosmological Impact of Redshift-Dependent Type Ia Supernovae Calibration

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A phenomenological redshift-dependent SNIa magnitude correction shows no evidence in ΛCDM but is preferred at 4.3σ with dynamical dark energy, reducing Hubble tension to 1.5σ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [10]

    & Gil-Mar ´ ın, H

    Verde, L., Sch¨ oneberg, N. & Gil-Mar ´ ın, H. A Tale of Many H 0. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.62, 287–331 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Riess, A. G. et al. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. Astron. J.116, 1009–1038 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Perlmutter, S. et al. Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae. Astrophys. J.517, 565–586 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [3]

    Murayama, H. et al. Exploring the quantum universe: Pathways to innovation and discovery in particle physics. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2407.19176 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    & Mahmoudi, F

    Arbey, A. & Mahmoudi, F. Dark matter and the early universe: A review. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics119, 103865 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Albrecht, A. et al. Report of the Dark Energy Task Force. arXiv e-prints astro– ph/0609591 (2006)

    arXiv 2006

  7. [6]

    White, S. D. M. Fundamentalist physics: why dark energy is bad for astronomy. Reports on Progress in Physics70, 883–897 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [7]

    A thousand invisible cords binding astronomy and high-energy physics

    Kolb, R. A thousand invisible cords binding astronomy and high-energy physics. Reports on Progress in Physics70, 1583–1595 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Riess, A. G. et al. A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the hubble constant with 1 km s1 mpc1 uncertainty from the hubble space telescope and the shoes team. Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022). 9

    2022

  2. [9]

    Camphuis, E. et al. Spt-3g d1: Cmb temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the spt-3g main field (2025)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Riess, A. G. et al. JWST Validates HST Distance Measurements: Selection of Supernova Subsample Explains Differences in JWST Estimates of Local H 0. Astrophys. J.977, 120 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Freedman, W. L. et al. Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes. Astrophys. J.985, 203 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Li, S. et al. The Complete Sample of Available SNe Ia Luminosity Calibrations from the TRGB Observed with either HST or JWST. arXiv e-prints astro– ph/2504.08921 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Jensen, J. B. et al. The TRGB-SBF Project. III. Refining the HST Surface Brightness Fluctuation Distance Scale Calibration with JWST. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2502.15935 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2506.03023 (2025)

    TDCOSMO Collaboration et al.TDCOSMO 2025: Cosmological constraints from strong lensing time delays. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2506.03023 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Scolnic, D., Boubel, P., Byrne, J., Riess, A. G. & Anand, G. S. Calibrating the Tully-Fisher Relation to Measure the Hubble Constant. arXiv e-prints astro– ph/2412.08449 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Levi, M. et al. The desi experiment, a whitepaper for snowmass 2013. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/1308.0847 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The desi experiment part i: Science,targeting, and survey design

    DESI Collaboration et al. The desi experiment part i: Science,targeting, and survey design. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/1611.00036 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest astro–ph/2503.14739 (2025)

    DESI Collaboration et al. DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest astro–ph/2503.14739 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    DESI Collaboration et al. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. arXiv e-prints astro– ph/2503.14738 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Garcia-Quintero, C. et al. Cosmological implications of desi dr2 bao measure- ments in light of the latest act dr6 cmb data. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2504.18464 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A phantom menace? cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state

    Caldwell, R. A phantom menace? cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state. Physics Letters B545, 23–29 10 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Lodha, K. et al. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2503.14743 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Linder, E. V. Interpreting Dark Energy Data Away from λ. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2410.10981 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J., Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, C., Anton, T

    Wolf, W. J., Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, C., Anton, T. & Ferreira, P. G. Assessing cosmological evidence for non-minimal coupling. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2504.07679 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    & Silvestri, A

    Ye, G., Martinelli, M., Hu, B. & Silvestri, A. Hints of nonminimally coupled gravity in desi 2024 baryon acoustic oscillation measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Dinda, B. R. & Maartens, R. Physical versus phantom dark energy after desi: thawing quintessence in a curved background. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.542, L31–L35 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    & Zaldarriaga, M

    Chen, S.-F. & Zaldarriaga, M. It’s all ok: Curvature in light of bao from desi dr2. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2505.00659 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    & Nesseris, S

    Akrami, Y., Alestas, G. & Nesseris, S. Has desi detected exponential quintessence? arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2504.04226 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Di Valentino, E. et al. The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2504.01669 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    et al.Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with desi dr2 bao

    Chaussidon, E. et al.Early time solution as an alternative to the late time evolving dark energy with desi dr2 bao. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2503.24343 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    & Trodden, M

    Khoury, J., Lin, M.-X. & Trodden, M. Apparent w <−1 and a lower s8 from dark axion and dark baryons interactions. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2503.16415 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    & Bruni, M

    Cruickshank, N., Crittenden, R., Koyama, K. & Bruni, M. Forecasts for inter- acting dark energy with time-dependent momentum exchange. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2504.03555 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Linder, E. V. Uplifting, depressing, and tilting dark energy. arXiv e-prints astro– ph/2506.02122 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    & Vafa, C

    Obied, G., Ooguri, H., Spodyneiko, L. & Vafa, C. De sitter space and the swampland. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/1806.08362 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J., Minic, D

    Hur, S., Jejjala, V., Kavic, M. J., Minic, D. & Takeuchi, T. Dynamical dark energy, dual spacetime, and desi. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2503.20854 (2025). 11

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Wright, A. H. et al.Kids-legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete kilo-degree survey. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2503.19441 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    St¨ olzner, B. et al. Kids-legacy: Consistency of cosmic shear measurements and joint cosmological constraints with external probes. arXiv e-prints astro– ph/2503.19442 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Leauthaud, A. et al. Lensing is low: cosmology, galaxy formation or new physics? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.467, 3024–3047 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Lange, J. U. et al. Constraints on S 8 from a full-scale and full-shape analysis of redshift-space clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing in BOSS. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.520, 5373–5393 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    et al.Evidence for large baryonic feedback at low and intermediate redshifts from kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich observations with ACT and DESI photometric galaxies

    Hadzhiyska, B. et al.Evidence for large baryonic feedback at low and intermediate redshifts from kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich observations with ACT and DESI photometric galaxies. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2407.07152 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Elbers, W. et al. Constraints on Neutrino Physics from DESI DR2 BAO and DR1 Full Shape. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2503.14744 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Aghanim, N. et al. Planck2015 results: Xi. cmb power spectra, likelihoods, and robustness of parameters. Astron. Astrophys.594, A11 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Castellano, M. et al. Pushing jwst to the extremes: search and scrutiny of bright galaxy candidates at z ≃15-30. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2504.05893 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Ade, P. et al. The simons observatory: science goals and forecasts. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2019, 056–056 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Lsst science book, version 2.0

    LSST Science Collaboration et al. Lsst science book, version 2.0. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/0912.0201 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Laureijs, R. et al. Euclid definition study report. arXiv e-prints astro– ph/1110.3193 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    et al.Extragalactic science, cosmology, and Galactic archaeology with the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph

    Takada, M. et al.Extragalactic science, cosmology, and Galactic archaeology with the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn66, R1 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Spergel, D. et al. Wide-field infrarred survey telescope-astrophysics focused telescope assets wfirst-afta 2015 report. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/1503.03757 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dawson, K. et al. Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: High den- sity galaxy clustering in the regime of cosmic acceleration. arXiv e-prints astro–ph/2203.07291 (2022). 12

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.