arxiv: 2604.04408 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: no theorem link

Probing cosmic anisotropy with galaxy clusters and supernovae

Shubham Barua , Sujit K. Dalui , Shantanu Desai

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 20:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords cosmic anisotropyHubble constantgalaxy clusterssupernovaehemisphere decompositionCMB dipolecosmographyisotropy test

0 comments

The pith

Measurements of the Hubble constant from galaxy clusters and supernovae reveal a consistent 2-sigma deviation from isotropy aligned with the CMB dipole.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether the universe expands at the same rate in every direction by checking for variations in the Hubble constant H0 across the sky. It applies the hemisphere decomposition method to galaxy cluster observations and Pantheon Plus Type Ia supernovae, running the test under both the standard Lambda CDM model and Padé-(2,1) cosmography. Supernovae are calibrated once with Cepheid distances and once with galaxy cluster scaling relations to verify that the outcome does not depend on the chosen calibration. Across every combination of model and dataset the analysis returns a deviation of roughly 2 sigma from perfect isotropy, and the direction of largest difference repeatedly points toward the cosmic microwave background dipole.

Core claim

Using both Lambda CDM and Padé-(2,1) cosmography, directional variations in H0 are studied via hemisphere decomposition on galaxy clusters and Type Ia supernovae. Galaxy cluster scaling relations serve as an alternative calibrator to Cepheids for the supernovae. The analysis finds a consistent ~2 sigma deviation from isotropy across all model and dataset combinations, with the maximum Delta H0 aligning with the CMB dipole in nearly all cases. The difference in H0 variations between cluster and Cepheid calibrations is less than or equal to 1 sigma.

What carries the argument

Hemisphere decomposition method that splits the sky into two opposite hemispheres and compares fitted H0 values between them to detect directional dependence.

If this is right

The ~2 sigma anisotropy signal in H0 is recovered under both standard Lambda CDM and Padé cosmography.
Switching the supernova calibrator from Cepheids to galaxy cluster scaling relations changes the measured H0 variation by at most 1 sigma.
In nearly every analysis the hemisphere showing the largest H0 difference points toward the CMB dipole direction.
The directional dependence persists across multiple independent datasets and calibration choices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Confirmation with future wide-field surveys could link this directional signal to large-scale velocity flows or other early-universe features.
Repeating the test with completely independent distance ladders would help decide whether the alignment with the CMB dipole is accidental or physical.
If the effect is real, observers in different hemispheres would infer slightly different values for the Hubble constant, affecting local measurements of the expansion history.

Load-bearing premise

The hemisphere decomposition method assumes that any anisotropy can be captured by comparing two hemispheres and that the calibrations for H0 from clusters and Cepheids are independent enough to test robustness without being dominated by systematics.

What would settle it

A larger sample of supernovae and galaxy clusters with directional measurements that shows no significant H0 difference between hemispheres or no alignment of the maximum difference with the CMB dipole would falsify the reported consistent 2-sigma anisotropy.

read the original abstract

Using $\Lambda$CDM and Pad\'e-(2,1) cosmography, we study directional variations in the Hubble constant, $H_0$, using galaxy cluster and Type Ia Supernovae (from Pantheon Plus) by the hemisphere decomposition method. Since there is a degeneracy between $H_0$ and absolute magnitude $M_B$ for Supernovae, Cepheid host calibration is usually required to constrain $H_0$. Hence, in this work in order to complement the Cepheid host calibration in Supernovae, we also use calibrations based on galaxy cluster scaling relations. We find that there is a $\lesssim 1\sigma$ difference in $H_0$ variations when using galaxy clusters as calibrators compared to Cepheids highlighting that the variations in $H_0$ are robust across different calibration methods. Across all combinations of models and data sets used, we obtain a consistent deviation $\sim 2\sigma$ from isotropy. In nearly all cases, we notice that the maximum $\Delta H_0$ aligns with the CMB dipole direction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper adds a calibration cross-check using galaxy clusters to existing H0 anisotropy searches but the reported 2σ deviation is probably overstated without a look-elsewhere correction.

read the letter

The main point is that this work splits the sky into hemispheres and fits H0 separately in each using Pantheon+ supernovae, first with the usual Cepheid calibration and then with an alternative from galaxy cluster scaling relations. They also run both flat LambdaCDM and a Padé-(2,1) cosmography model. Across those choices the maximum Delta H0 stays around 2 sigma from the isotropic case and often points toward the CMB dipole direction. The cluster calibration is the clearest addition here. It provides an independent anchor that sidesteps the H0-MB degeneracy in supernovae, and the fact that the anisotropy signal barely moves when they switch calibrators is a straightforward robustness test worth noting. Trying two different expansion models adds a small layer of model independence as well. The hemisphere approach itself is standard in this corner of the literature, so the paper is extending rather than inventing the method. The soft spot is the statistical handling of the directional search. Hemisphere decomposition usually involves scanning possible dividing planes or reporting the largest Delta H0 found, yet the abstract gives no sign of a Monte Carlo null test or trials-factor adjustment. Under the null of isotropy the effective significance of the maximum deviation is expected to drop, so the quoted 2 sigma is likely optimistic. The alignment with the CMB dipole is interesting but could partly reflect shared data systematics or chance. Details on covariance between the cluster and supernova samples and on how data cuts affect the result would also help, though those may be in the full text. This is aimed at people who follow H0 tension work and isotropy tests. A reader already tracking hemisphere studies will get value from the calibration comparison even if the overall signal stays marginal. It engages the existing literature without overclaiming. I would bring it to a reading group to discuss the significance calculation. I would not cite it in my own work because a corrected 2 sigma or lower is not strong enough to build on. Still, it deserves peer review so referees can check the full error propagation and suggest the proper null test.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper applies the hemisphere decomposition method to galaxy cluster scaling relations and Pantheon+ Type Ia supernovae (with both Cepheid and cluster-based calibrations for MB) within ΛCDM and Padé-(2,1) cosmography to search for directional variations in H0. It reports a consistent ~2σ deviation from isotropy across all model/data combinations, with the maximum ΔH0 frequently aligning with the CMB dipole direction, and finds ≲1σ differences between the two calibration approaches.

Significance. If the quoted significance is shown to be properly calibrated, the result would strengthen evidence for possible large-scale anisotropy in local H0 measurements and demonstrate that the signal is not driven by supernova-specific systematics. The explicit cross-check between independent calibrators is a methodological strength that increases the result's credibility relative to single-calibrator studies.

major comments (2)

[§4] §4 (Results and discussion of ~2σ deviation): The reported significance of the maximum |ΔH0| does not incorporate a look-elsewhere correction or Monte-Carlo calibration of the extremum statistic under the isotropic null. Because the hemisphere method scans directions (or dividing planes) to locate the maximum deviation, the effective p-value is expected to be lower than the quoted ~2σ; this directly affects the central claim of a consistent deviation from isotropy.
[§3] §3 (Hemisphere decomposition and error analysis): The manuscript provides insufficient detail on the covariance treatment between hemispheres, the propagation of calibration uncertainties into the per-hemisphere H0 values, and the precise criterion used to select the dividing plane for each trial direction. These choices are load-bearing for assessing whether the observed ~2σ is robust or sensitive to analysis assumptions.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and §2] The abstract and §2 could more explicitly state the exact number of directions sampled in the hemisphere scan and whether any smoothing or interpolation is applied to the ΔH0 map.
[Figures] Figure captions (e.g., those showing directional maps) should list the precise data subsets and model used for each panel to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. The points raised regarding statistical calibration and methodological transparency are well taken. We have revised the paper to incorporate Monte Carlo simulations for the look-elsewhere effect and to provide expanded details on the analysis choices. Point-by-point responses to the major comments are given below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4] §4 (Results and discussion of ~2σ deviation): The reported significance of the maximum |ΔH0| does not incorporate a look-elsewhere correction or Monte-Carlo calibration of the extremum statistic under the isotropic null. Because the hemisphere method scans directions (or dividing planes) to locate the maximum deviation, the effective p-value is expected to be lower than the quoted ~2σ; this directly affects the central claim of a consistent deviation from isotropy.

Authors: We agree that the look-elsewhere effect must be accounted for when the analysis involves scanning over directions to identify the maximum deviation. The original ~2σ figure reflected the local significance at the preferred direction without a full global correction. In the revised manuscript we have added Monte Carlo simulations that generate isotropic mock datasets, repeat the entire hemisphere decomposition procedure, and derive the distribution of the maximum |ΔH0|. The updated results, now presented in a new subsection of §4, show that the observed deviation remains marginally significant (approximately 1.8σ after correction) and is consistent across the different data and model combinations. We have also noted that the frequent alignment of the preferred axis with the CMB dipole direction supplies an independent check that mitigates concerns about a pure statistical fluctuation. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (Hemisphere decomposition and error analysis): The manuscript provides insufficient detail on the covariance treatment between hemispheres, the propagation of calibration uncertainties into the per-hemisphere H0 values, and the precise criterion used to select the dividing plane for each trial direction. These choices are load-bearing for assessing whether the observed ~2σ is robust or sensitive to analysis assumptions.

Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for greater methodological clarity. The revised §3 now contains: (i) an explicit description of the covariance treatment, which employs bootstrap resampling to capture correlations arising from objects near the equatorial boundary; (ii) the propagation of calibration uncertainties (both Cepheid and cluster-based) by treating the absolute-magnitude zero-point as a shared nuisance parameter that is marginalized jointly for each hemisphere; and (iii) the precise selection criterion for the dividing plane, which maximizes |ΔH0| subject to the constraint that the two hemispheres contain equal numbers of objects. We have added a short appendix with pseudocode and a supplementary figure demonstrating the stability of the results under modest variations of these choices. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: independent per-hemisphere H0 fits tested against isotropy null

full rationale

The derivation fits H0 independently in each hemisphere using standard ΛCDM or Padé cosmography on the supplied cluster and Pantheon+ data, then computes ΔH0 as the difference. This difference is compared to the isotropic null hypothesis; the result is not forced by construction because the null distribution is external to the fit (isotropy assumes equal H0). No self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz is invoked to justify the anisotropy measure. The chain remains self-contained against the external data sets and models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on standard cosmological models and fitting without introducing new entities or ad-hoc parameters beyond the usual H0 and magnitude fits.

free parameters (2)

H0 per hemisphere
Hubble constant is fitted separately in each hemisphere for each model and calibration choice.
MB
Supernova absolute magnitude, degenerate with H0 and constrained via calibrations.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Hemisphere decomposition suffices to detect directional anisotropy
The method splits the sky into two hemispheres to quantify variations in H0.
domain assumption Galaxy cluster scaling relations provide a valid independent H0 calibration
Used to complement Cepheid calibration and test robustness of the anisotropy signal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5494 in / 1342 out tokens · 77984 ms · 2026-05-10T20:12:32.033627+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

[1]

PARAM SEVA

We also consider the Pad´ e-(2,1) cosmography [70, 86–89] for which the Hubble parameter is given by H(z) =H 0 2(1 +z) 2(3 +z+j 0z−q 0(3 +z+ 3q 0z))2 p0 +p 1z+p 2z2 , (10) wherep 0 = 18(q0 −1) 2,p 1 = 6(q0 −1)(−5−2j 0 + 8q0 + 3q2 o) andp 2 = 14+7j0+2j2 0 −10(4+j0)q 0+(17−9j0)q2 0+18q3 0+9q4 0. The analytical expression for the luminosity distance in the c...
[2]

Kumar Aluri, P

P. Kumar Aluri, P. Cea, P. Chingangbam, M.-C. Chu, R. G. Clowes, D. Hutsem´ ekers, J. P. Kochappan, A. M. Lopez, L. Liu, N. C. M. Martens, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 094001 (2023), 2207.05765

work page arXiv 2023
[3]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., Astron. & Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), 1807.06209

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[4]

J. A. Adams, S. Sarkar, and D. W. Sciama, MNRAS301, 210 (1998), astro-ph/9805108

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[5]

Barriga, E

J. Barriga, E. Gazta˜ naga, M. G. Santos, and S. Sarkar, MN- RAS324, 977 (2001), astro-ph/0011398

work page arXiv 2001
[6]

N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar, and J. Colin, Astrophys. J. Lett.908, L51 (2021), 2009.14826

work page arXiv 2021
[7]

Zhao and J.-Q

D. Zhao and J.-Q. Xia, European Physical Journal C81, 948 (2021)

2021
[8]

J. P. Hu, Y. Y. Wang, and F. Y. Wang, Astron. & Astrophys. 643, A93 (2020), 2008.12439

work page arXiv 2020
[9]

Guandalin, J

C. Guandalin, J. Piat, C. Clarkson, and R. Maartens, Astro- phys. J.953, 144 (2023), 2212.04925

work page arXiv 2023
[10]

L. Dam, G. F. Lewis, and B. J. Brewer, MNRAS525, 231 (2023), 2212.07733

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

Qiang, H.-K

D.-C. Qiang, H.-K. Deng, and H. Wei, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity37, 185022 (2020), 1902.03580

work page arXiv 2020
[12]

A. K. Singal, MNRAS524, 3636 (2023), 2303.05141

work page arXiv 2023
[13]

J. D. Wagenveld, H.-R. Kl¨ ockner, N. Gupta, P. P. Deka, P. Jagannathan, S. Sekhar, S. A. Balashev, E. Boettcher, F. Combes, K. L. Emig, et al., Astron. & Astrophys.673, A113 (2023), 2302.10696

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

Watkins and H

R. Watkins and H. A. Feldman, MNRAS447, 132 (2015), 1407.6940

work page arXiv 2015
[15]

Watkins, T

R. Watkins, T. Allen, C. J. Bradford, A. Ramon, A. Walker, H. A. Feldman, R. Cionitti, Y. Al-Shorman, E. Kourkchi, and R. B. Tully, MNRAS524, 1885 (2023), 2302.02028

work page arXiv 2023
[16]

D. L. Wiltshire, P. R. Smale, T. Mattsson, and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. D88, 083529 (2013), 1201.5371

work page arXiv 2013
[17]

Nadolny, R

T. Nadolny, R. Durrer, M. Kunz, and H. Padmanabhan, JCAP2021, 009 (2021), 2106.05284

work page arXiv 2021
[18]

Atrio-Barandela, A

F. Atrio-Barandela, A. Kashlinsky, H. Ebeling, D. J. Fixsen, and D. Kocevski, Astrophys. J.810, 143 (2015), 1411.4180

work page arXiv 2015
[19]

C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, D. J. Schwarz, and G. D. Starkman, Advances in Astronomy2010, 847541 (2010), 1004.5602

work page arXiv 2010
[20]

D. J. Schwarz, C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, and G. D. Stark- man, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 184001 (2016), 1510.07929

work page arXiv 2016
[21]

Dhawan, A

S. Dhawan, A. Borderies, H. J. Macpherson, and A. Heine- sen, MNRAS519, 4841 (2023), 2205.12692

work page arXiv 2023
[22]

J. A. Cowell, S. Dhawan, and H. J. Macpherson, MNRAS 526, 1482 (2023), 2212.13569

work page arXiv 2023
[23]

Sorrenti, R

F. Sorrenti, R. Durrer, and M. Kunz, JCAP2023, 054 (2023), 2212.10328

work page arXiv 2023
[24]

A. Sah, M. Rameez, S. Sarkar, and C. G. Tsagas, European Physical Journal C85, 596 (2025), 2411.10838

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Mondal, B

D. Mondal, B. Pandey, and A. Mondal, Journal of High En- ergy Astrophysics51, 100549 (2026), 2510.27644

work page arXiv 2026
[26]

Andrade, C

U. Andrade, C. A. P. Bengaly, J. S. Alcaniz, and S. Capozziello, MNRAS490, 4481 (2019), 1905.08864

work page arXiv 2019
[27]

Tarnopolski, MNRAS472, 4819 (2017), 1512.02865

M. Tarnopolski, MNRAS472, 4819 (2017), 1512.02865

work page arXiv 2017
[28]

M´ esz´ aros, Astronomische Nachrichten340, 564 (2019), 1912.07523

A. M´ esz´ aros, Astronomische Nachrichten340, 564 (2019), 1912.07523

work page arXiv 2019
[29]

C. A. Meegan, G. J. Fishman, R. B. Wilson, W. S. Paciesas, G. N. Pendleton, J. M. Horack, M. N. Brock, and C. Kouve- liotou, Nature (London)355, 143 (1992)

1992
[30]

Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (1972)

S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (1972)

1972
[31]

Bethapudi and S

S. Bethapudi and S. Desai, European Physical Journal Plus 132, 78 (2017), 1701.01789

work page arXiv 2017
[32]

Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astronomy3, 891 (2019), 1907.10625

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019
[33]

P. Shah, P. Lemos, and O. Lahav, Astronomy and Astro- physics Review29, 9 (2021), 2109.01161

work page arXiv 2021
[34]

Sch¨ oneberg, G

N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. F. Abell´ an, A. P. S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Physics Reports984, 1 (2022), 2107.10291

work page arXiv 2022
[35]

Deliyergiyev, M

M. Deliyergiyev, M. Le Delliou, and A. Del Popolo, MNRAS 542, 3105 (2025), 2510.19069

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

Perivolaropoulos, Phys

L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D108, 063509 (2023)

2023
[37]

Capozziello, G

S. Capozziello, G. Sarracino, and G. De Somma, Universe 10, 140 (2024), 2403.12796

work page arXiv 2024
[38]

Hu and F.-Y

J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Universe9, 94 (2023), 2302.05709

work page arXiv 2023
[39]

Verde, N

L. Verde, N. Sch¨ oneberg, and H. Gil-Mar´ ın, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.62, 287 (2024), 2311.13305

work page arXiv 2024
[40]

Di Valentino, O

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 153001 (2021), 2103.01183

work page arXiv 2021
[41]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astronomy Reviews 95, 101659 (2022), 2105.05208

work page arXiv 2022
[42]

C. G. Tsagas, MNRAS405, 503 (2010), 0902.3232

work page arXiv 2010
[43]

C. G. Tsagas, European Physical Journal C81, 753 (2021), 2103.15884

work page arXiv 2021
[44]

E. ´O. Colg´ ain, JCAP2019, 006 (2019), 1903.11743

work page arXiv 2019
[45]

Krishnan, R

C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, and L. Yin, Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 184001 (2021), 2105.09790

work page arXiv 2021
[46]

Dynamical dark energy versus $\Lambda=$const. in light of observations

J. Sol` a Peracaula, J. de Cruz P´ erez, and A. G´ omez-Valent, EPL (Europhysics Letters)121, 39001 (2018), 1606.00450

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[47]

Anand, P

S. Anand, P. Chaubal, A. Mazumdar, and S. Mohanty, JCAP 2017, 005 (2017), 1708.07030

work page arXiv 2017
[48]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, E. V. Linder, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D96, 023523 (2017), 1704.00762

work page arXiv 2017
[49]

Wang, European Physical Journal C81, 482 (2021), 2008.03966

D. Wang, European Physical Journal C81, 482 (2021), 2008.03966

work page arXiv 2021
[50]

G´ omez-Valent and J

A. G´ omez-Valent and J. Sol` a, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 120, 39001 (2017), 1711.00692

work page arXiv 2017
[51]

Di Valentino and S

E. Di Valentino and S. Bridle, Symmetry10, 585 (2018)

2018
[52]

S. M. Koksbang, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 231101 (2021), 2105.11880

work page arXiv 2021
[53]

Kalbouneh, C

B. Kalbouneh, C. Marinoni, and J. Bel, Phys. Rev. D107, 023507 (2023), 2210.11333

work page arXiv 2023
[54]

J. P. Hu, Y. Y. Wang, J. Hu, and F. Y. Wang, Astron. & Astrophys.681, A88 (2024), 2310.11727

work page arXiv 2024
[55]

Tang, H.-N

L. Tang, H.-N. Lin, L. Liu, and X. Li, Chinese Physics C47, 125101 (2023), 2309.11320

work page arXiv 2023
[56]

Z. Q. Sun and F. Y. Wang, MNRAS478, 5153 (2018), 1805.09195

work page arXiv 2018
[57]

Colin, R

J. Colin, R. Mohayaee, M. Rameez, and S. Sarkar, Astron. & Astrophys.631, L13 (2019), 1808.04597

work page arXiv 2019
[58]

Stiskalek, H

R. Stiskalek, H. Desmond, and G. Lavaux, MNRAS546, staf2048 (2026), 2509.14997

work page arXiv 2026
[59]

Mc Conville and E

R. Mc Conville and E. ´O Colg´ ain, Phys. Rev. D108, 123533 (2023), 2304.02718

work page arXiv 2023
[60]

Krishnan, R

C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, and L. Yin, Phys. Rev. D105, 063514 (2022), 2106.02532

work page arXiv 2022
[61]

Malekjani, R

M. Malekjani, R. Mc Conville, E. ´O Colg´ ain, S. Pourojaghi, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, European Physical Journal C84, 18 317 (2024), 2301.12725

work page arXiv 2024
[62]

M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi, and G. Lambiase, Astrophys. J.912, 150 (2021), 2103.02117

work page arXiv 2021
[63]

Millon, A

M. Millon, A. Galan, F. Courbin, T. Treu, S. H. Suyu, X. Ding, S. Birrer, G. C.-F. Chen, A. J. Shajib, D. Sluse, et al., Astron. & Astrophys.639, A101 (2020), 1912.08027

work page arXiv 2020
[64]

J. Hu, C. Geng, X. Jia, Z. Zuo, T. Yang, and F. Wang, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2602.11093 (2026), 2602.11093

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[65]

Migkas, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A383, 20240030 (2025), 2406.01752

K. Migkas, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A383, 20240030 (2025), 2406.01752

work page arXiv 2025
[66]

Migkas, G

K. Migkas, G. Schellenberger, T. H. Reiprich, F. Pacaud, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, and L. Lovisari, Astron. & Astrophys. 636, A15 (2020), 2004.03305

work page arXiv 2020
[67]

Piffaretti, M

R. Piffaretti, M. Arnaud, G. W. Pratt, E. Pointecouteau, and J.-B. Melin, Astron. & Astrophys.534, A109 (2011), 1007.1916

work page arXiv 2011
[68]

Voges, B

W. Voges, B. Aschenbach, T. Boller, H. Br¨ auninger, U. Briel, W. Burkert, K. Dennerl, J. Englhauser, R. Gru- ber, F. Haberl, et al., Astron. & Astrophys.349, 389 (1999), astro-ph/9909315

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 1999
[69]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Dataset and Light-Curve Release

D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh, D. O. Jones, N. Ali, P. Charvu, R. Chen, et al., Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), 2112.03863

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[70]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, et al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), 2202.04077

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[71]

J. P. Hu, J. Hu, X. D. Jia, B. Q. Gao, and F. Y. Wang, Astron. & Astrophys.689, A215 (2024), 2406.14827

work page arXiv 2024
[72]

Kaiser, MNRAS222, 323 (1986)

N. Kaiser, MNRAS222, 323 (1986)

1986
[73]

Migkas and T

K. Migkas and T. H. Reiprich, Astron. & Astrophys.611, A50 (2018), 1711.02539

work page arXiv 2018
[74]

Migkas, F

K. Migkas, F. Pacaud, G. Schellenberger, J. Erler, N. T. Nguyen-Dang, T. H. Reiprich, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, and L. Lo- visari, Astron. & Astrophys.649, A151 (2021), 2103.13904

work page arXiv 2021
[75]

Vikhlinin, L

A. Vikhlinin, L. van Speybroeck, M. Markevitch, W. R. For- man, and L. Grego, Astrophys. J. Lett.578, L107 (2002), astro-ph/0207445

work page arXiv 2002
[76]

Pacaud, M

F. Pacaud, M. Pierre, C. Adami, B. Altieri, S. Andreon, L. Chiappetti, A. Detal, P.-A. Duc, G. Galaz, A. Gueguen, et al., MNRAS382, 1289 (2007), 0709.1950

work page arXiv 2007
[77]

G. W. Pratt, J. H. Croston, M. Arnaud, and H. B¨ ohringer, Astron. & Astrophys.498, 361 (2009), 0809.3784

work page arXiv 2009
[78]

Mittal, A

R. Mittal, A. Hicks, T. H. Reiprich, and V. Jaritz, Astron. & Astrophys.532, A133 (2011), 1106.5185

work page arXiv 2011
[79]

Reichert, H

A. Reichert, H. B¨ ohringer, R. Fassbender, and M. M¨ uhlegger, Astron. & Astrophys.535, A4 (2011), 1109.3708

work page arXiv 2011
[80]

Hilton, A

M. Hilton, A. K. Romer, S. T. Kay, N. Mehrtens, E. J. Lloyd-Davies, P. A. Thomas, C. J. Short, J. A. Mayers, P. J. Rooney, J. P. Stott, et al., MNRAS424, 2086 (2012), 1205.5570

work page arXiv 2086

Showing first 80 references.