pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28662 · v1 · pith:4E3QHIV6new · submitted 2026-05-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Testing cosmic anisotropy with the Combo correlation of gamma-ray bursts

Dong Zhao , Hao-Ran Duan , Jun-Qing Xia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 10:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords gamma-ray burstscosmic anisotropyCombo correlationdipole fittinghemisphere comparisonPantheon samplelarge-scale structureisotropy test
0
0 comments X

The pith

Larger samples of gamma-ray bursts with the Combo correlation suppress fake signals of cosmic anisotropy

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

The paper tests cosmic anisotropy by applying the Combo correlation to a sample of 244 gamma-ray bursts and combining it with the Pantheon supernova catalog. It compares the results to those from a smaller set of 118 GRBs and from Pantheon data alone, using dipole fitting and hemisphere comparison methods. The larger GRB sample produces a clear shift in the apparent preferred direction and lowers the uncertainty, which the authors interpret as evidence that bigger samples reduce spurious anisotropy signals arising from uneven spatial distributions. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to GRBs as a possible independent check on whether the universe looks the same in all directions on the largest scales.

Core claim

We employ the sample of 244 gamma-ray bursts with the Combo correlation to test cosmic anisotropy. In the dipole fitting method the C244 sample shifts the best-fitting longitude by 54.09 degrees relative to the Pantheon sample and reduces the uncertainty in longitude by about 40 percent. The shift grows by an additional 21.35 degrees compared with the result from 118 GRBs. In the hemisphere comparison method the preferred direction from the C244 plus Pantheon sample deviates from the Pantheon-only direction by more than 1 sigma, whereas the 118-GRB plus Pantheon result stays consistent within 1 sigma. These changes demonstrate that increasing the number of GRBs reduces the fake anisotropic s

What carries the argument

The Combo correlation applied to gamma-ray bursts, analyzed through dipole fitting and hemisphere comparison methods while cross-checked against the Pantheon sample to separate true anisotropy from distribution artifacts.

If this is right

  • The longitude uncertainty drops by roughly 40 percent when the GRB sample grows from 118 to 244 events.
  • The best-fit longitude shifts by an extra 21.35 degrees with the larger sample compared with the smaller one.
  • The hemisphere-comparison preferred direction moves more than 1 sigma away from the Pantheon-only direction only when the full 244-GRB set is used.
  • GRBs can therefore serve as an independent and increasingly reliable probe of cosmic anisotropy once sample size is sufficient.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future catalogs with several hundred more GRBs could drive the uncertainty low enough to distinguish real anisotropy from residual distribution effects.
  • The same cross-check strategy might be applied to other transient distance indicators to test whether their spatial coverage also generates spurious signals.
  • Independent verification with different anisotropy estimators or with mock catalogs that control for selection bias would help isolate the contribution of the Combo correlation itself.

Load-bearing premise

The shift in preferred direction when the GRB sample grows is produced by the removal of fake signals from inhomogeneous distributions rather than by statistical fluctuations or other unmodeled effects.

What would settle it

Finding that the preferred direction stops shifting or reverts when the GRB sample is enlarged further, or that independent larger samples yield a stable direction consistent with the smaller-sample result, would falsify the claim that larger samples reliably suppress fake signals.

read the original abstract

We employ the sample of 244 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs; i.e., C244) with the Combo correlation to test cosmic anisotropy. Meanwhile, the Pantheon sample is introduced to verify whether the GRB sample can suppress the fake anisotropic signals induced by inhomogeneous spatial distributions. In the dipole fitting (DF) method, under the dipole-modulated $\Lambda$CDM model, the C244 sample shifts the best-fitting longitude $l$ derived from the Pantheon sample by $54.09^\circ$ and reduces the uncertainty in $l$ by approximately $40\%$. Compared to the 118 GRBs (i.e., A118) with the $E_\mathrm{p}$-$E_\mathrm{iso}$ correlation, the shift in longitude $l$ increases by additional $21.35^\circ$. In the hemisphere comparison (HC) method, the preferred direction derived from the C244+Pantheon sample deviates from that of the Pantheon-only sample by more than $1\sigma$. In contrast, the preferred direction from the A118+Pantheon sample is consistent with the Pantheon-only result within the $1\sigma$ uncertainty. The preferred direction changes significantly as the number of GRBs increases from 118 to 244. Our results show that a larger GRB sample can reduce the fake anisotropic signals caused by inhomogeneous spatial distributions. Accordingly, we suggest that GRBs have the potential to provide a reliable probe of cosmic anisotropy.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes cosmic anisotropy using a sample of 244 gamma-ray bursts (C244) fitted with the Combo correlation, combined with the Pantheon supernova sample. It reports that the C244+Pantheon combination shifts the best-fit dipole longitude l by 54.09° relative to Pantheon alone (with ~40% smaller uncertainty) and by an additional 21.35° relative to the smaller A118 GRB sample; the hemisphere-comparison preferred direction deviates by >1σ from the Pantheon-only result, unlike the A118 case. The authors interpret these shifts as evidence that larger GRB samples suppress fake anisotropic signals induced by inhomogeneous spatial distributions, concluding that GRBs can serve as reliable probes of cosmic anisotropy.

Significance. If the causal attribution of the observed directional shifts to suppression of Pantheon-induced fake signals is validated, the result would strengthen the case for using GRB samples to test isotropy claims in the late universe. The work is empirical and uses standard dipole-fitting and hemisphere-comparison methods; however, its impact is constrained by the absence of explicit null-hypothesis controls.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / DF results] Abstract and results section on DF method: the interpretation that the 54.09° longitude shift and 40% uncertainty reduction are specifically caused by suppression of fake signals from inhomogeneous distributions is not supported by any Monte Carlo realization of an isotropic sky populated with the actual Pantheon+GRB positions and redshifts, nor by a predicted distribution of shifts under the null hypothesis.
  2. [HC results] HC method paragraph: the claim of >1σ deviation for C244+Pantheon versus consistency within 1σ for A118+Pantheon is presented without the underlying error propagation details, covariance matrix, or quantitative test that the Combo correlation itself is free of direction-dependent calibration bias.
  3. [Sample comparison] Comparison between A118 and C244: the additional 21.35° shift when increasing GRB sample size is attributed to reduced fake anisotropy, but no quantitative model of the inhomogeneous-distribution bias (e.g., selection-function simulation) is shown to demonstrate that this shift exceeds sample-variance expectations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the Combo correlation parameters and the exact definition of the dipole-modulated ΛCDM model should be stated explicitly in the methods section for reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the sky maps or direction plots should include the precise 1σ contours and the coordinate system used (galactic or equatorial).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and results section on DF method: the interpretation that the 54.09° longitude shift and 40% uncertainty reduction are specifically caused by suppression of fake signals from inhomogeneous distributions is not supported by any Monte Carlo realization of an isotropic sky populated with the actual Pantheon+GRB positions and redshifts, nor by a predicted distribution of shifts under the null hypothesis.

    Authors: We agree that Monte Carlo simulations would be ideal to confirm the attribution to suppression of fake signals. Our interpretation is drawn from the empirical results showing a larger shift with the expanded C244 sample compared to A118, along with reduced uncertainty. We will modify the abstract and results to present the finding as evidence suggesting that larger GRB samples can help mitigate such effects, while explicitly noting the lack of MC validation as a limitation of the current study. revision: yes

  2. Referee: HC method paragraph: the claim of >1σ deviation for C244+Pantheon versus consistency within 1σ for A118+Pantheon is presented without the underlying error propagation details, covariance matrix, or quantitative test that the Combo correlation itself is free of direction-dependent calibration bias.

    Authors: In the revised version, we will include the error propagation methodology and any relevant covariance information for the hemisphere comparison. We note that the Combo correlation is applied uniformly across the sample without assuming directional dependence, but we will add a statement acknowledging that a dedicated test for direction-dependent calibration bias was not performed in this work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Comparison between A118 and C244: the additional 21.35° shift when increasing GRB sample size is attributed to reduced fake anisotropy, but no quantitative model of the inhomogeneous-distribution bias (e.g., selection-function simulation) is shown to demonstrate that this shift exceeds sample-variance expectations.

    Authors: The shift is reported as an observational result from the two samples. To address this, we will expand the discussion to compare the observed shift to the reported uncertainties, arguing that it is significant relative to sample variance. However, we recognize that a full selection-function simulation would provide more quantitative support, which is beyond the scope of the present analysis. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Monte Carlo realizations to test the null hypothesis and quantitative selection-function simulations for the bias model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical fits to independent observational samples

full rationale

The paper conducts direct dipole fitting (DF) and hemisphere comparison (HC) on the C244 GRB sample combined with Pantheon supernovae, comparing results against the smaller A118 GRB sample. All reported shifts in longitude l and preferred directions are outputs of these data-driven fits; no equation or result is shown to equal its own input by construction, no parameter is fitted on a subset and then relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The analysis remains falsifiable against the external catalogs and is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the domain assumption that the Combo correlation reliably standardizes GRB distances and that Pantheon provides an isotropic reference; free parameters are the fitted dipole parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • dipole longitude l and amplitude
    Fitted parameters in the dipole-modulated ΛCDM model under DF method.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Combo correlation provides reliable distance estimates for GRBs
    Invoked to enable use of C244 sample for anisotropy testing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5790 in / 1329 out tokens · 49241 ms · 2026-06-29T10:30:56.749648+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results

    G. Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results. Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/ 2013

  2. [2]

    arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020). https://doi. org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. [Erra- tum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]. arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  4. [4]

    Akrami, et al., Planck 2018 results

    Y. Akrami, et al., Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB. Astron. Astrophys.641, A7 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935201. arXiv:1906.02552 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935201 2018

  5. [5]

    J. Kim, P. Naselsky, Anomalous parity asymmetry of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe power spectrum data at low multipoles. Astrophys. J. Lett.714, L265–L267 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 2041-8205/714/2/L265. arXiv:1001.4613 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Gruppuso, F

    A. Gruppuso, F. Finelli, P. Natoli, F. Paci, P. Cabella, A. De Rosa, N. Mandolesi, New constraints on Parity Symmetry from a re- analysis of the WMAP-7 low resolution power spectra. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.411, 1445–1452 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2966.2010.17773.x. arXiv:1006.1979 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Directional dependence of CMB parity asymmetry

    W. Zhao, Directional dependence of CMB parity asymmetry. Phys. Rev. D89(2), 023010 (2014). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023010. arXiv:1306.0955 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.023010 2014

  8. [8]

    Hutsemekers, R

    D. Hutsemekers, R. Cabanac, H. Lamy, D. Sluse, Mapping extreme-scale alignments of quasar polarization vectors. Astron. Astro- phys.441, 915–930 (2005). https://doi.org/ 10.1051/0004-6361:20053337. arXiv:astro- ph/0507274

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053337 2005

  9. [9]

    Evidence for the alignment of quasar radio polarizations with large quasar group axes

    V. Pelgrims, D. Hutsem´ ekers, Evidence for the alignment of quasar radio polar- izations with large quasar group axes. Astron. Astrophys.590, A53 (2016). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526979. arXiv:1604.03937 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526979 2016

  10. [12]

    Improved cosmological constraints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples

    M. Betoule, et al., Improved cosmolog- ical constraints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples. Astron. Astrophys.568, A22 (2014). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201423413. arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413 2014

  11. [15]

    Is there Correlation between Fine Structure and Dark Energy Cosmic Dipoles?

    A. Mariano, L. Perivolaropoulos, Is there cor- relation between Fine Structure and Dark Energy Cosmic Dipoles? Phys. Rev. D 86, 083517 (2012). https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.86.083517. arXiv:1206.4055 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [16]

    Anisotropy of Cosmic Acceleration

    W. Zhao, P.X. Wu, Y. Zhang, Anisotropy of Cosmic Acceleration. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1350060 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218271813500600. arXiv:1305.2701 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [19]

    H.N. Lin, X. Li, Z. Chang, The significance of anisotropic signals hiding in the type Ia supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460(1), 617–626 (2016). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stw995. arXiv:1604.07505 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stw995 2016

  14. [23]

    A tomographic test of cosmological principle using the JLA compilation of type Ia supernovae

    Z. Chang, H.N. Lin, Y. Sang, S. Wang, A tomographic test of cosmological princi- ple using the JLA compilation of type Ia supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478(3), 3633–3639 (2018). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/sty1120. arXiv:1711.11321 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1120 2018

  15. [24]

    Testing the anisotropy of cosmic acceleration from Pantheon supernovae sample

    Z.Q. Sun, F.Y. Wang, Testing the anisotropy of cosmic acceleration from Pantheon super- novae sample. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478(4), 5153–5158 (2018). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/sty1391. arXiv:1805.09195 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1391 2018

  16. [26]

    D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, Z. Chang, Anisotropy of the Universe via the Pantheon supernovae sample revisited. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486(4), 5679–5689 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stz1259. arXiv:1903.12401 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1259 2019

  17. [27]

    Chang, D

    Z. Chang, D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, Constrain- ing the anisotropy of the Universe with the Pantheon supernovae sample. Chin. Phys. C43(12), 125102 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/43/12/125102. arXiv:1910.06883 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/12/125102 2019

  18. [28]

    Tang, H.N

    L. Tang, H.N. Lin, L. Liu, X. Li, Con- sistency of Pantheon+ supernovae with a large-scale isotropic universe*. Chin. Phys. C47(12), 125101 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1674-1137/acfaf0. arXiv:2309.11320 12 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acfaf0 2023

  19. [29]

    Sorrenti, R

    F. Sorrenti, R. Durrer, M. Kunz, The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data. JCAP 11, 054 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2023/11/054. arXiv:2212.10328 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [32]

    A. Sah, M. Rameez, S. Sarkar, C.G. Tsagas, Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae. Eur. Phys. J. C85(5), 596 (2025). https:// doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14222-w. arXiv:2411.10838 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14222-w 2025

  21. [34]

    J. Hu, J. Hu, X. Jia, B. Gao, F. Wang, Testing cosmic anisotropy with Pad´ e approx- imations and the latest Pantheon+ sample. Astron. Astrophys.689, A215 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450342. arXiv:2406.14827 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450342 2024

  22. [35]

    Perivolaropoulos, Isotropy properties of the absolute luminosity magnitudes of SnIa in the Pantheon+ and SH0ES sam- ples

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Isotropy properties of the absolute luminosity magnitudes of SnIa in the Pantheon+ and SH0ES sam- ples. Phys. Rev. D108(6), 063509 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 108.063509. arXiv:2305.12819 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2023

  23. [36]

    Bengaly, J.S

    C.A.P. Bengaly, J.S. Alcaniz, C. Pigozzo, Testing the isotropy of cosmic acceler- ation with the Pantheon+ and SH0ES datasets: A cosmographic analysis. Phys. Rev. D109(12), 123533 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123533. arXiv:2402.17741 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123533 2024

  24. [37]

    A.J. Zhou, S. Dodelson, D. Scolnic, Isotropy of Hubble Expansion in the Early and Late Universe. Phys. Rev. Lett.135(26), 261002 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/w99g-lgnn. arXiv:2506.14878 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1103/w99g-lgnn 2025

  25. [38]

    Boubel, M

    P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said, L. Staveley- Smith, Testing anisotropic Hubble expansion. JCAP03, 066 (2025). https: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/066. arXiv:2412.14607 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/066 2025

  26. [42]

    Migkas, F

    K. Migkas, F. Pacaud, G. Schellenberger, J. Erler, N.T. Nguyen-Dang, T.H. Reiprich, M.E. Ramos-Ceja, L. Lovisari, Cosmological implications of the anisotropy of ten galaxy cluster scaling relations. Astron. Astrophys. 649, A151 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202140296. arXiv:2103.13904 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  27. [43]

    Aluri, et al., Is the observable Uni- verse consistent with the cosmological prin- ciple? Class

    P.K. Aluri, et al., Is the observable Uni- verse consistent with the cosmological prin- ciple? Class. Quant. Grav.40(9), 094001 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ acbefc. arXiv:2207.05765 [astro-ph.CO] 13

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ 2023

  28. [44]

    Pandya, K

    A. Pandya, K. Migkas, T.H. Reiprich, A. Stanford, F. Pacaud, G. Schellenberger, L. Lovisari, M.E. Ramos-Ceja, N.T. Nguyen- Dang, S. Park, Examining the local Universe isotropy with galaxy cluster velocity disper- sion scaling relations. Astron. Astrophys. 691, A355 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202451755. arXiv:2408.00726 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [45]

    Cai, T.B

    R.G. Cai, T.B. Liu, S.J. Wang, W.T. Xu, Probing cosmic anisotropy with GW/FRB as upgraded standard sirens. JCAP 09, 016 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2019/09/016. arXiv:1905.01803 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [46]

    Cousins, A

    B. Cousins, A. Dhani, B.S. Sathyaprakash, N. Yunes, Finding cosmic anisotropy with networks of next-generation gravitational- wave detectors. Phys. Rev. D111(10), 103530 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.111.103530. arXiv:2406.15550 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [47]

    Chen, Measuring the cosmic dipole with golden dark sirens in the era of next- generation ground-based gravitational wave detectors

    A. Chen, Measuring the cosmic dipole with golden dark sirens in the era of next- generation ground-based gravitational wave detectors. JCAP07, 076 (2025). https: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/076. arXiv:2505.12678 [gr-qc]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/07/076 2025

  32. [48]

    X. Wang, Z. Huang, Testing the cosmolog- ical principle on gigaparsec scales. JCAP 02, 031 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2026/02/031. arXiv:2505.19055 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  33. [49]

    Qiang, H.K

    D.C. Qiang, H.K. Deng, H. Wei, Cos- mic Anisotropy and Fast Radio Bursts. Class. Quant. Grav.37(18), 185022 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ab7f8e. arXiv:1902.03580 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab7f8e 2020

  34. [50]

    H.N. Lin, Y. Sang, Probing the anisotropic distribution of baryon matter in the Universe using fast radio bursts *. Chin. Phys. C 45(12), 125101 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1088/1674-1137/ac2660. arXiv:2111.12934 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [51]

    Secrest, S

    N.J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar, J. Colin, A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars. Astrophys. J. Lett.908(2), L51 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ abdd40. arXiv:2009.14826 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ 2021

  36. [52]

    Secrest, S

    N.J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar, A Challenge to the Standard Cosmological Model. Astrophys. J. Lett.937(2), L31 (2022). https://doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/ac88c0. arXiv:2206.05624 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [53]

    Dam, G.F

    L. Dam, G.F. Lewis, B.J. Brewer, Testing the cosmological principle with CatWISE quasars: a bayesian analysis of the number- count dipole. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 525(1), 231–245 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stad2322. arXiv:2212.07733 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2322 2023

  38. [54]

    Guandalin, J

    C. Guandalin, J. Piat, C. Clarkson, R. Maartens, Theoretical Systematics in Testing the Cosmological Princi- ple with the Kinematic Quasar Dipole. Astrophys. J.953(2), 144 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acdf46. arXiv:2212.04925 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdf46 2023

  39. [56]

    Wagenveld, H.R

    J.D. Wagenveld, H.R. Kl¨ ockner, D.J. Schwarz, The cosmic radio dipole: Bayesian estimators on new and old radio surveys. Astron. Astrophys.675, A72 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346210. arXiv:2305.15335 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346210 2023

  40. [58]

    Panwar, P

    M. Panwar, P. Jain, Probing the cosmo- logical principle using the slope of log N- log S relationship for quasars. JCAP 06, 019 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2024/06/019. arXiv:2312.07596 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [59]

    Singal, Resolution of the incongruency of dipole asymmetries within various large radio surveys – implications for the Cosmo- logical Principle

    A.K. Singal, Resolution of the incongruency of dipole asymmetries within various large radio surveys – implications for the Cosmo- logical Principle. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528(4), 5679–5691 (2024). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stae414. arXiv:2312.12785 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae414 2024

  42. [60]

    da Silveira Ferreira, V

    P. da Silveira Ferreira, V. Marra, Tomo- graphic redshift dipole: testing the cosmological principle. JCAP09, 077 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/ 09/077. arXiv:2403.14580 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/ 2024

  43. [62]

    Abghari, E.F

    A. Abghari, E.F. Bunn, L.T. Hergt, B. Li, D. Scott, R.M. Sullivan, D. Wei, Reassess- ment of the dipole in the distribution of quasars on the sky. JCAP11, 067 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024/11/067. arXiv:2405.09762 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024

  44. [65]

    J.P. Hu, Y.Y. Wang, F.Y. Wang, Testing cos- mic anisotropy with Pantheon sample and quasars at high redshifts. Astron. Astrophys. 643, A93 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202038541. arXiv:2008.12439 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  45. [66]

    Zhao, J.Q

    D. Zhao, J.Q. Xia, Constraining the anisotropy of the Universe with the X- ray and UV fluxes of quasars. Eur. Phys. J. C81(8), 694 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09491-0. arXiv:2105.03965 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09491-0 2021

  46. [67]

    Scattering of massless scalar field by charged dila- tonic black holes.The European Physical Journal C, 80:654, 2020

    D. Zhao, J.Q. Xia, A tomographic test of cosmic anisotropy with the recently-released quasar sample. Eur. Phys. J. C81(10), 948 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-021-09701-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2021

  47. [69]

    Constraining the Anisotropy of the Universe from Supernovae and Gamma-ray Bursts

    Z. Chang, X. Li, H.N. Lin, S. Wang, Constraining the Anisotropy of the Uni- verse from Supernovae and Gamma-ray Bursts. Mod. Phys. Lett. A29(15), 1450067 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0217732314500679. arXiv:1405.3074 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [70]

    Probing the anisotropic expansion from supernovae and GRBs in a model-independent way

    J.S. Wang, F.Y. Wang, Probing the anisotropic expansion from supernovae and GRBs in a model-independent way. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.443(2), 1680–1687 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stu1279. arXiv:1406.6448 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2014

  49. [71]

    Luongo, M

    O. Luongo, M. Muccino, E. ´O. Colg´ ain, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari, L. Yin, Larger H0 values in the CMB dipole direction. Phys. Rev. D105(10), 103510 (2022). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103510. arXiv:2108.13228 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.103510 2022

  50. [72]

    Zhao, J.Q

    D. Zhao, J.Q. Xia, Testing cosmic anisotropy with the Ep−Eiso (‘Amati’) correlation of GRBs. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511(4), 5661–5671 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/ 15 mnras/stac498

    2022

  51. [74]

    Spectroscopic investigation of the tungsten deuteride sputtering in the EAST divertor

    J. Santiago, K. Asvesta, M.G. Dainotti, P. Chen, Measuring cosmic dipole with the GRB luminosity-time relation. JHEAp51, 100554 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jheap.2026.100554. arXiv:2510.20705 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2026

  52. [75]

    A Hubble Diagram for Quasars

    G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, A Hubble Dia- gram for Quasars. Astrophys. J.815, 33 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/ 815/1/33. arXiv:1505.07118 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2015

  53. [76]

    Cosmological constraints from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts

    G. Risaliti, E. Lusso, Cosmological con- straints from the Hubble diagram of quasars at high redshifts. Nature Astron.3(3), 272–277 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-018-0657-z. arXiv:1811.02590 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [77]

    Lusso, et al., Quasars as standard candles III

    E. Lusso, et al., Quasars as standard candles III. Validation of a new sample for cosmolog- ical studies. Astron. Astrophys.642, A150 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202038899. arXiv:2008.08586 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2020

  55. [78]

    A Photometric Redshift of z ~ 9.4 for GRB 090429B

    A. Cucchiara, et al., A Photometric Redshift of z∼9.4 for GRB 090429B. Astrophys. J.736, 7 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/736/1/7. arXiv:1105.4915 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [79]

    D’Avanzo, et al., A complete sample of bright Swift Gamma-Ray Bursts: X-ray afterglow luminosity and its correlation with the prompt emission

    P. D’Avanzo, et al., A complete sample of bright Swift Gamma-Ray Bursts: X-ray afterglow luminosity and its correlation with the prompt emission. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.425, 506 (2012). https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21489.x. arXiv:1206.2357 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21489.x 2012

  57. [80]

    The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst redshift distribution: selection biases and optical brightness evolution at high-z?

    D. Coward, E. Howell, M. Branch- esi, G. Strata, D. Guetta, B. Gendre, D. Macpherson, The Swift Gamma- Ray Burst redshift distribution: selection biases and optical bright- ness evolution at high-z? Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.432, 2141 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt537. arXiv:1210.2488 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stt537 2013

  58. [81]

    Addressing the circularity problem in the $E_\text{p}-E_\text{iso}$ correlation of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    L. Amati, R. D’Agostino, O. Luongo, M. Muccino, M. Tantalo, Addressing the circularity problem in theE p −E iso cor- relation of gamma-ray bursts. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486(1), L46–L51 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/ slz056. arXiv:1811.08934 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnrasl/ 2019

  59. [82]

    Dirirsa, S

    F.F. Dirirsa, S. Razzaque, F. Piron, M. Ari- moto, M. Axelsson, D. Kocevski, F. Longo, M. Ohno, S. Zhu, Spectral analysis of Fermi- LAT gamma-ray bursts with known red- shift and their potential use as cosmological standard candles. Astrophys. J.887, 13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ ab4e11. arXiv:1910.07009 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2019

  60. [83]

    Khadka, O

    N. Khadka, O. Luongo, M. Muccino, B. Ratra, Do gamma-ray burst measure- ments provide a useful test of cosmological models? JCAP09, 042 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/09/042. arXiv:2105.12692 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/09/042 2021

  61. [84]

    Muccino, M

    M. Muccino, M. Della Valle, L. Izzo, O. Luongo, No evidence for dynamical dark energy from the Combo correlation of GRBs (2026). arXiv:2604.01980 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  62. [85]

    L. Izzo, M. Muccino, E. Zaninoni, L. Amati, M. Della Valle, New measurements of Ω m from gamma-ray bursts. Astron. Astrophys. 582, A115 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201526461. arXiv:1508.05898 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [86]

    Muccino, L

    M. Muccino, L. Izzo, O. Luongo, K. Boshkayev, L. Amati, M. Della Valle, G.B. Pisani, E. Zaninoni, Tracing dark energy history with gamma ray bursts. Astrophys. J.908(2), 181 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abd254. arXiv:2012.03392 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd254 2021

  64. [87]

    Fits, and especially linear fits, with errors on both axes, extra variance of the data points and other complications

    G. D’Agostini, Fits, and especially linear fits, with errors on both axes, extra variance of the 16 data points and other complications (2005). arXiv:physics/0511182

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  65. [88]

    (An)isotropy of the Hubble diagram: comparing hemispheres

    D.J. Schwarz, B. Weinhorst, (An)isotropy of the Hubble diagram: Comparing hemi- spheres. Astron. Astrophys.474, 717–729 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361: 20077998. arXiv:0706.0165 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361: 2007

  66. [89]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang, J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Ham- mer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306– 312 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1086/670067. arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  67. [90]

    HEALPix -- a Framework for High Resolution Discretization, and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere

    K.M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, M. Bartelmann, HEALPix - A Framework for high resolution discretization, and fast anal- ysis of data distributed on the sphere. Astro- phys. J.622, 759–771 (2005). https://doi. org/10.1086/427976. arXiv:astro-ph/0409513

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/427976 2005

  68. [91]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon, K. Gorski, healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in Python. J. Open Source Softw.4(35), 1298 (2019). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01298

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019

  69. [92]

    Bernardini, B

    M.G. Bernardini, B. Cordier, J. Wei, The SVOM Mission. Galaxies9, 113 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies9040113. arXiv:2203.10962 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies9040113 2021

  70. [93]

    Amati, E

    L. Amati, E. Bozzo, D. G¨ otz, P. O’Brien, M. Della Valle, The THESEUS Workshop

  71. [94]

    Mem. Soc. Ast. It.89(2), 118–129 (2018). arXiv:1802.01673 [astro-ph.HE] 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018