arxiv: 2105.05208 · v3 · submitted 2021-05-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc· hep-ph· hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Challenges for ΛCDM: An update

Leandros Perivolaropoulos , Foteini Skara

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 21:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

keywords LambdaCDMHubble tensioncosmological tensionsdark energycosmic microwave backgroundbaryon acoustic oscillationsgrowth tension

0 comments

The pith

Multiple cosmological observations conflict with the standard LambdaCDM model at 2 sigma or higher.

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

The paper collects signals from cosmology and astrophysics that disagree with LambdaCDM predictions defined by the Cosmological Principle, General Relativity, and Planck18 parameters. It centers on the 5 sigma Hubble tension while also covering the growth tension, lensing amplitude anomaly, cosmic dipoles, CMB asymmetries, BAO Ly-alpha tension, and smaller issues like the lithium problem and core-cusp puzzle. The review states the current significance levels of these signals as of 2022 and notes theoretical approaches that might address some of them. A reader would care because sustained tensions could require extensions to the standard model of the universe's evolution.

Core claim

A number of signals in cosmological and astrophysical data appear in tension at 2 sigma or larger with the standard LambdaCDM model as specified by the Cosmological Principle, General Relativity and the Planck18 parameter values, including the 5 sigma Hubble tension along with growth, lensing, dipole, and small-scale curiosities.

What carries the argument

Statistical tensions (2 sigma or higher) between observed data and LambdaCDM predictions based on Planck18 parameters.

If this is right

Persistent Hubble tension would require modifications such as new dark energy components or altered gravity at late times.
Growth and lensing tensions would further constrain the allowed extensions to LambdaCDM.
Smaller signals like cosmic dipoles and the lithium problem would need to be incorporated into any unified explanation.
Theoretical models must simultaneously fit the full set of tensions at their reported significance levels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The pattern of tensions across scales might indicate that the assumption of perfect homogeneity breaks down at observable distances.
Next-generation surveys could isolate whether the signals share a common cause or arise independently.
Connecting these tensions to early-universe physics could guide targeted tests with future CMB polarization data.

Load-bearing premise

The tensions reflect genuine inconsistencies in the underlying physics rather than primarily unknown systematic errors in the data sets.

What would settle it

A future high-precision local Hubble constant measurement that matches the Planck CMB-inferred value within 1 sigma would show the main tensions are not fundamental.

read the original abstract

A number of challenges to the standard $\Lambda$CDM model have been emerging during the past few years as the accuracy of cosmological observations improves. In this review we discuss in a unified manner many existing signals in cosmological and astrophysical data that appear to be in some tension ($2\sigma$ or larger) with the standard $\Lambda$CDM model as specified by the Cosmological Principle, General Relativity and the Planck18 parameter values. In addition to the well-studied $5\sigma$ challenge of $\Lambda$CDM (the Hubble $H_0$ tension) and other well known tensions (the growth tension, and the lensing amplitude $A_L$ anomaly), we discuss a wide range of other less discussed less-standard signals which appear at a lower statistical significance level than the $H_0$ tension some of them known as 'curiosities' in the data) which may also constitute hints towards new physics. For example such signals include cosmic dipoles (the fine structure constant $\alpha$, velocity and quasar dipoles), CMB asymmetries, BAO Ly$\alpha$ tension, age of the Universe issues, the Lithium problem, small scale curiosities like the core-cusp and missing satellite problems, quasars Hubble diagram, oscillating short range gravity signals etc. The goal of this pedagogical review is to collectively present the current status (2022 update) of these signals and their level of significance, with emphasis on the Hubble tension and refer to recent resources where more details can be found for each signal. We also briefly discuss theoretical approaches that can potentially explain some of these signals.

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 is a clear 2022 update review that organizes known ΛCDM tensions without adding new analysis or checks.

read the letter

This review pulls together the main reported tensions with ΛCDM as they stood in 2022. It covers the Hubble tension at high significance, the growth tension, the AL anomaly, and a set of lower-significance items like cosmic dipoles, BAO Lyα issues, and small-scale structure problems. The authors keep the focus on published data sets and their quoted significance levels, with consistent use of Planck18 parameters as the reference point. The structure is straightforward and the references are easy to follow, which makes the paper a convenient single source for the current landscape. The sections on the Hubble tension and lensing amplitude stand out as the most useful because they tie directly to specific measurements and note the tension levels without extra interpretation. The inclusion of some less-discussed signals, such as the fine-structure constant dipole or quasar Hubble diagram, adds breadth that is not always collected in one place. The brief theoretical approaches section at the end is balanced and does not push any particular fix. The main limitation is that the paper performs no new fits, data reduction, or systematic checks of its own. It reports what the cited literature says, so any reader still has to consult the original papers to judge how much of each tension might trace to unaccounted systematics rather than new physics. A few of the curiosities are presented at face value even though they have long histories in the literature. This is the sort of compilation that works for a cosmology reading group or for someone who needs a quick map of the tensions before diving into specific papers. The citation pattern is solid and draws from established sources. I would send it for peer review. It is a useful reference update that deserves to appear in a journal like JCAP or Universe.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a pedagogical review compiling observational signals from cosmological and astrophysical datasets that appear in ≥2σ tension with the standard ΛCDM model (defined via the Cosmological Principle, General Relativity, and Planck18 parameters). It organizes the well-known ~5σ H0 tension, the growth tension, and the AL lensing anomaly alongside lower-significance signals including cosmic dipoles (α, velocity, quasar), CMB asymmetries, BAO Lyα tension, Universe age issues, the Lithium problem, small-scale structure curiosities (core-cusp, missing satellites), the quasar Hubble diagram, and short-range gravity oscillations. The central claim is descriptive: these signals exist in the published literature at the stated significance levels as of the 2022 update. The review refers readers to primary sources for details and briefly surveys possible theoretical extensions.

Significance. If the compiled tensions reflect genuine inconsistencies rather than systematics, the review usefully flags the need for extensions beyond ΛCDM. Its strength lies in the unified presentation of disparate signals, each tied to specific published datasets and significance levels, without introducing new fits or derivations. This makes the manuscript a convenient reference for tracking the status of ΛCDM challenges, provided the cited literature remains accurately summarized.

major comments (2)

[Hubble tension section] § on Hubble tension: the 5σ claim is presented as established, but the text does not explicitly tabulate the exact combination of Planck18 + local distance-ladder datasets (e.g., SH0ES) versus alternative anchors that yield lower tension; this omission weakens the ability to assess robustness against systematics.
[Theoretical approaches] Section on theoretical approaches: the discussion lists candidate models but provides no quantitative assessment of which (if any) simultaneously relieve multiple tensions (H0 + growth + AL) at the reported significance levels; this leaves the reader without a clear mapping from signals to viable extensions.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract states '2022 update' while the arXiv identifier is 2105.05208 (May 2021); clarify the revision history and cutoff date for included references.
[Throughout] Throughout: several 'curiosities' are introduced without a uniform table summarizing their reported σ levels, datasets, and references; adding such a summary table would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the text accordingly to strengthen the presentation while preserving the review's pedagogical focus on compiling observational signals.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Hubble tension section] § on Hubble tension: the 5σ claim is presented as established, but the text does not explicitly tabulate the exact combination of Planck18 + local distance-ladder datasets (e.g., SH0ES) versus alternative anchors that yield lower tension; this omission weakens the ability to assess robustness against systematics.

Authors: We agree that an explicit tabulation would aid readers in evaluating robustness. The 5σ figure refers to the standard combination of Planck18 parameters with the SH0ES distance-ladder measurement as reported in the cited literature. We have added a new table in the Hubble tension section that lists the primary dataset combinations (Planck18 + SH0ES, Planck18 + TRGB, and other anchors), the resulting H0 values, and the corresponding tension significances, with direct references to the source papers. This addition directly addresses the concern about assessing systematics. revision: yes
Referee: [Theoretical approaches] Section on theoretical approaches: the discussion lists candidate models but provides no quantitative assessment of which (if any) simultaneously relieve multiple tensions (H0 + growth + AL) at the reported significance levels; this leaves the reader without a clear mapping from signals to viable extensions.

Authors: The theoretical approaches section is intentionally concise, as the manuscript's core aim is to survey the observational signals and their significance levels rather than to perform new model comparisons. A quantitative joint analysis of which extensions simultaneously address multiple tensions at the stated levels would require dedicated parameter estimation beyond the scope of this review. We have revised the section to state this limitation explicitly and to point readers to recent dedicated studies that perform such multi-tension analyses. This maintains the review's focus while improving guidance for interested readers. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This is a review paper that compiles and organizes previously published observational signals reported as tensions with ΛCDM from the external literature. No new derivations, models, equations, or fitted parameters are introduced whose internal consistency could be tested. All claims rest on cited external references rather than any self-referential reduction or self-citation load-bearing step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review rests on the standard LambdaCDM framework defined by the Cosmological Principle, General Relativity, and Planck18 parameters; no new free parameters or entities are introduced by the authors.

free parameters (1)

Planck18 cosmological parameters
The standard LambdaCDM model is specified using the Planck18 parameter values as the reference point for tensions.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Cosmological Principle
Assumed as part of the standard LambdaCDM model definition.
domain assumption General Relativity
Assumed as part of the standard LambdaCDM model definition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1260 out tokens · 24860 ms · 2026-05-16T21:21:07.544031+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

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

GI BAO as a cosmological consistency check
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

GI BAO provides a robust consistency check for density BAO and shear data, with the first photometric measurement on DES Y3 showing agreement at α = 0.966 ± 0.252.
Geometric Constraints on the Pre-Recombination Expansion History from the Hubble Tension
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Model-independent reconstruction shows that early-universe modifications resolving the Hubble tension exist at the background level, requiring a smooth ~15% pre-recombination expansion rate enhancement.
Double the axions, half the tension: multi-field early dark energy eases the Hubble tension
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Two-field axion-like early dark energy reduces Hubble tension to 1.5 sigma residual and improves high-ell CMB fits over single-field models.
Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

A new quintessence model with non-minimal coupling produces an effective sign-switching interaction that fits current data better than LambdaCDM or w0waCDM and accounts for late-time dark energy weakening without phan...
DESI and Gravitational Wave Constraints Challenge Quintessential {\alpha}-Attractor Inflation
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

Alpha-attractor quintessential inflation models are disfavored by DESI observations and Delta Neff limits from gravitational waves, as they predict an inconsistent scalar spectral index when the gravitational-wave abu...
Cosmological intercept tension
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Tensions in the supernova intercept a_B at z~0.01 in PantheonPlus and z~0.1 in DES-Y5 point to data systematics or inter-survey inconsistencies rather than new physics, aligning H0 measurements and reducing support fo...
Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permit...
Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Model-independent reconstruction finds 96.7-98.5% probability of phantom crossing if recombination is standard, but early new physics to ease Hubble tension weakens this preference while requiring unrealistically high...
Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.
New constraints on cosmic anisotropy from galaxy clusters using an improved dipole fitting method
astro-ph.CO 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Galaxy cluster observations yield two preferred directions with cosmic anisotropy amplitude of about 5.3 times 10 to the minus 4 at roughly 1 sigma overall significance, though higher in the XMM-Newton subsample.
Revisiting the Matter Creation Process: Observational Constraints on Gravitationally Induced Dark Energy and the Hubble Tension
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

Gravitationally induced particle creation models fit cosmological data as well as ΛCDM and reduce the Hubble tension from 4.3σ to 2.4–3σ.
Joint Constraints on Neutrinos and Dynamical Dark Energy in Minimally Modified Gravity
astro-ph.CO 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

The w†VCDM model shows a statistically significant preference for late-time quintessence-phantom crossing dark energy, raises the Hubble constant, and satisfies neutrino mass and Neff constraints from current cosmolog...
Probing the sensitivity of dark energy dynamics to equation of state parametrization flexibility
astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

Flexible dark energy equation of state parametrizations mildly favor dynamical phantom-like behavior at z~1-2, but the preference is only ~2 sigma and sensitive to the model form and extrapolation.
Testing $\Lambda$CDM with ANN-Reconstructed Expansion History from Cosmic Chronometers
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

The ANN-reconstructed Hubble parameter H(z) from cosmic chronometers aligns with Lambda CDM predictions within uncertainties.
Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Coupled quintessence-dark matter models can produce an apparent phantom-crossing effective equation of state matching DESI preferences if the scalar field begins frozen in the radiation era.
Probing cosmic anisotropy with galaxy clusters and supernovae
astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Analysis of galaxy cluster and supernova data reveals a ~2σ directional variation in the Hubble constant, robust across calibration methods and aligned with the CMB dipole.
Cosmological constraints on the big bang quantum cosmology model
astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

The JCDM model yields H0 of 66.95 plus or minus 0.51 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m of 0.3419 plus or minus 0.0065 in a flat universe, rising to H0 of 69.13 plus or minus 0.56 with slight positive curvature, fitting late-time d...
How Complex is Dark Energy? A Bayesian Analysis of CPL Extensions with Recent DESI BAO Measurements
astro-ph.CO 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0

Bayesian evidence from DESI BAO plus CMB and SN data favors the standard CPL evolving dark energy model over both simpler constant-w and more complex higher-order extensions.
Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements
astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 4.0

Extended analysis of DESI DR2 data confirms robust evidence for dynamical dark energy with phantom crossing preference, stable under parametric and non-parametric modeling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 19 Pith papers · 34 internal anchors

[1]

No new cosmological concordance with massive sterile neutrinos

13, 041301, arXiv:1404.5950 [astro-ph.CO]. Lelli, F. (2022), Nature Astron. 6, 35, arXiv:2201.11752 [astro-ph.GA]. Lelli, F., S. S. McGaugh, and J. M. Schombert (2016a), As- tron. J. 152, 157, arXiv:1606.09251 [astro-ph.GA]. 93 Lelli, F., S. S. McGaugh, and J. M. Schombert (2016b), Astrophys. J. Lett. 816 (1), L14, arXiv:1512.04543 [astro- ph.GA]. Lelli, ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[3]

The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation of Gas Rich Galaxies as a Test of LCDM and MOND

McGaugh, S. (2012), Astron. J. 143, 40, arXiv:1107.2934 [astro-ph.CO]. McGaugh, S. S. (2005), Astrophys. J. 632, 859, arXiv:astro- ph/0506750. McGaugh, S. S. (2011), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 121303, [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 107, 229901 (2011)], arXiv:1102.3913 [astro-ph.CO]. McGaugh, S. S., and W. J. G. de Blok (1998), Astrophys. J. 499, 41, arXiv:astro-ph...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa114 2012
[4]

Bayesian Galaxy Shape Measurement for Weak Lensing Surveys - III. Application to the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey

Miller, L., et al. (2013), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 429, 2858, arXiv:1210.8201 [astro-ph.CO]. Millon, M., et al. (2020), Astron. Astrophys. 639, A101, arXiv:1912.08027 [astro-ph.CO]. Minami, Y. (2020), PTEP 2020 (6), 063E01, arXiv:2002.03572 [astro-ph.CO]. Minami, Y., and E. Komatsu (2020a), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (22), 221301, arXiv:2011.11254 [astro-ph...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[5]

A low CMB variance in the WMAP data

Monteserin, C., R. Barreiro, P. Vielva, E. Martinez-Gonzalez, M. Hobson, and A. Lasenby (2008), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 387, 209, arXiv:0706.4289 [astro-ph]. Moore, B. (1994), Nature 370,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[6]

Dark Matter Substructure in Galactic Halos

Moore, B., S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. R. Quinn, J. Stadel, and P. Tozzi (1999a), Astrophys. J. Lett. 524, L19, arXiv:astro-ph/9907411. Moore, B., T. R. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel, and G. Lake (1999b), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 310, 1147, arXiv:astro-ph/9903164. Moreno-Pulido, C., and J. S. Peracaula (2022), arXiv:2201.05827 [gr-qc]. Moreno...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[7]

Strongly Coupled Chameleon Fields: New Horizons in Scalar Field Theory

96 Mota, D. F., and D. J. Shaw (2006), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 151102, arXiv:hep-ph/0606204. Mota, D. F., and D. J. Shaw (2007), Phys. Rev. D75, 063501, arXiv:hep-ph/0608078. Motloch, P., and W. Hu (2020), Phys. Rev. D 101 (8), 083515, arXiv:1912.06601 [astro-ph.CO]. Mroczkowski, T., et al. (2019), Space Sci. Rev. 215 (1), 17, arXiv:1811.02310 [astro-ph.CO]....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[8]

The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - I. The dataset and timing analysis

Mukherjee, P., and N. Banerjee (2021), Phys. Rev. D 103 (12), 123530, arXiv:2105.09995 [astro-ph.CO]. Mukherjee, S., A. Ghosh, M. J. Graham, C. Karathanasis, M. M. Kasliwal, I. Maga˜ na Hernandez, S. M. Nissanke, A. Silvestri, and B. D. Wandelt (2020), arXiv:2009.14199 [astro-ph.CO]. Mukherjee, S., A. Krolewski, B. D. Wandelt, and J. Silk (2022), arXiv:22...

work page doi:10.1051/0004- 2021
[9]

Niedermann, F., and M. S. Sloth (2020), Phys. Rev. D 102 (6), 063527, arXiv:2006.06686 [astro-ph.CO]. Niedermann, F., and M. S. Sloth (2021a), arXiv:2112.00759 [hep-ph]. Niedermann, F., and M. S. Sloth (2021b), Phys. Rev. D 103 (4), L041303, arXiv:1910.10739 [astro-ph.CO]. Niedermann, F., and M. S. Sloth (2021c), Phys. Rev. D 103 (10), 103537, arXiv:2009....

work page doi:10.1209/0295- 2020
[10]

Galaxies as a cosmological test

Peebles, P. (2007), Nuovo Cim. B 122, 1035, arXiv:0712.2757 [astro-ph]. Peebles, P. J. E. (1980), The large-scale structure of the uni- verse. Peebles, P. J. E. (1984), Astrophys. J. 284,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[11]

Peebles, P. J. E. (2001), Astrophys. J. 557, 495, arXiv:astro- ph/0101127 [astro-ph]. Peebles, P. J. E. (2005), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 138, 5, arXiv:astro-ph/0311435. Peebles, P. J. E., R. A. Daly, and R. Juszkiewicz (1989), Astroph. J. 347,

work page arXiv 2001
[12]

The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy

Peebles, P. J. E., and B. Ratra (2003), Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559, [,592(2002)], arXiv:astro-ph/0207347 [astro-ph]. Peiris, H. V. (2014), IAU Symp. 306, 124, arXiv:1410.3837 [astro-ph.CO]. Peirone, S., G. Benevento, N. Frusciante, and S. Tsujikawa (2019), Phys. Rev. D 100 (6), 063540, arXiv:1905.05166 [astro-ph.CO]. Peracaula, J. S. (2022), arXiv:2203.13757...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[13]

Pizzone, R. G., R. Sparta, C. A. Bertulani, C. Spi- taleri, M. La Cognata, J. Lalmansingh, L. Lamia, A. Mukhamedzhanov, and A. Tumino (2014), Astrophys. J. 786, 112, arXiv:1403.4909 [nucl-ex]. Pizzuti, L., I. D. Saltas, S. Casas, L. Amendola, and A. Bi- viano (2019), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486 (1), 596, arXiv:1901.01961 [astro-ph.CO]. Plionis, M., R....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[14]

The Gaia mission

Prusti, T., et al. (Gaia) (2016), Astron. Astrophys. 595 (Gaia Data Release 1), A1, arXiv:1609.04153 [astro-ph.IM]. Punturo, M., et al. (2010), Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002. van Putten, M. H. P. M. (2017), Astrophys. J. 848 (1), 28, arXiv:1709.05944 [astro-ph.GA]. van Putten, M. H. P. M. (2019), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[15]

Read, J. I., M. I. Wilkinson, N. W. Evans, G. Gilmore, and J. T. Kleyna (2006), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 367, 387, arXiv:astro-ph/0511759. Refregier, A. (EUCLID) (2009), Exper. Astron. 23, 17, arXiv:0802.2522 [astro-ph]. Refsdal, S. (1964), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 128,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[16]

The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: measurements of the growth of structure and expansion rate at z=0.57 from anisotropic clustering

Reid, B. A., et al. (2012), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426, 2719, arXiv:1203.6641 [astro-ph.CO]. Reid, M., D. Pesce, and A. Riess (2019), Astrophys. J. Lett. 886 (2), L27, arXiv:1908.05625 [astro-ph.GA]. Reid, M. J., J. A. Braatz, J. J. Condon, L. J. Greenhill, C. Henkel, and K. Y. Lo (2009), Astrophys. J. 695, 287, arXiv:0811.4345 [astro-ph]. Reid, M. J...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[17]

Photospheric Magnitude Diagrams for Type II Supernovae: A Promising Tool to Compute Distances

Rodr´ ıguez, O., A. Clocchiatti, and M. Hamuy (2014), Astron. J. 148, 107, arXiv:1409.3198 [astro-ph.CO]. Rose, B. M., P. M. Garnavich, and M. A. Berg (2019), As- trophys. J. 874 (1), 32, arXiv:1902.01433 [astro-ph.CO]. Ross, A. J., L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Bur- den, and M. Manera (2015), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449 (1), 835, arXiv:...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.34133/2021/6014164 2014
[18]

C., and W

Rubin, V. C., and W. K. Ford, Jr. (1970), Astrophys. J. 159,

work page 1970
[19]

Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot

Rudnick, L., S. Brown, and L. R. Williams (2007), Astrophys. J. 671, 40, arXiv:0704.0908 [astro-ph]. Ruiz-Zapatero, J., C. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, D. Alonso, P. G. Ferreira, and R. D. P. Grumitt (2022), 10.1093/mn- ras/stac431, arXiv:2201.07025 [astro-ph.CO]. Rydberg, C.-E., E. Zackrisson, P. Lundqvist, and P. Scott (2013), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 429, 365...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mn- 2007
[20]

Internal Robustness of Growth Rate data

Sagredo, B., S. Nesseris, and D. Sapone (2018), Phys. Rev. D 98 (8), 083543, arXiv:1806.10822 [astro-ph.CO]. Saha, P., and L. L. R. Williams (2006), Astrophys. J. 653, 936, arXiv:astro-ph/0608496. Sahni, V., A. Shaﬁeloo, and A. A. Starobinsky (2014), Astro- phys. J. Lett. 793 (2), L40, arXiv:1406.2209 [astro-ph.CO]. Saini, T. D., J. Weller, and S. L. Brid...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[21]

Sapone (2022), JCAP 03 (03), 034, arXiv:2112.14173 [astro-ph.CO]

Sakr, Z., and D. Sapone (2022), JCAP 03 (03), 034, arXiv:2112.14173 [astro-ph.CO]. Sakstein, J. (2013), Phys. Rev. D 88 (12), 124013, arXiv:1309.0495 [astro-ph.CO]. Sakstein, J. (2018), Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27 (15), 1848008, arXiv:2002.04194 [astro-ph.CO]. Sakstein, J., and M. Trodden (2020), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (16), 161301, arXiv:1911.11760 [astro-ph.C...

work page arXiv 2022
[22]

Sandage, A., and G. A. Tammann (1984), Nature 307 (5949),

work page 1984
[23]

Sandvik, H. B., J. D. Barrow, and J. Magueijo (2002), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 031302, arXiv:astro-ph/0107512. Santos-Santos, I. M., C. B. Brook, G. Stinson, A. Di Cin- tio, J. Wadsley, R. Dom´ ınguez-Tenreiro, S. Gottl¨ ober, and G. Yepes (2016), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 455 (1), 476, arXiv:1510.02474 [astro-ph.GA]. Sapone, D., S. Nesseris, and C. A. P. B...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[24]

Schwarz, D. J., C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, and G. D. Starkman (2016), Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (18), 184001, arXiv:1510.07929 [astro-ph.CO]. Schwarz, D. J., G. D. Starkman, D. Huterer, and C. J. Copi (2004), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 221301, arXiv:astro- ph/0403353. Schwarz, G. (1978), Annals Statist. 6,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[25]

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

Scolnic, D., et al. (2021), arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]. Scolnic, D. M., et al. (2018), Astrophys. J. 859 (2), 101, arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]. Secco, L. F., et al. (DES) (2022), Phys. Rev. D 105 (2), 023515, arXiv:2105.13544 [astro-ph.CO]. Secrest, N. J., S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar, and J. Colin (2021), Astrophys. J. Lett....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[26]

Siegel, E. R., R. Guzman, J. P. Gallego, M. Orduna Lopez, and P. Rodriguez Hidalgo (2005), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 356, 1117, arXiv:astro-ph/0410612. da Silva, W. J. C., and R. Silva (2021a), Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 (5), 543, arXiv:2011.09520 [astro-ph.CO]. da Silva, W. J. C., and R. Silva (2021b), Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (5), 403, arXiv:2011.09516 [astro-p...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[27]

The Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Binary Neutron Star Merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. I. Dark Energy Camera Discovery of the Optical Counterpart

Soares-Santos, M., et al. (DES, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM) (2017), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848 (2), L16, arXiv:1710.05459 [astro-ph.HE]. Soares-Santos, M., et al. (DES, LIGO Scientiﬁc, Virgo) (2019), Astrophys. J. Lett. 876 (1), L7, arXiv:1901.01540 [astro-ph.CO]. Sohn, S. T., E. Patel, M. A. Fardal, G. Besla, R. P. van der Marel, M. Geha, and P. Guhathakurta ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[28]

Hints of dynamical vacuum energy in the expanding Universe

Sol` a, J., A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez (2015), Astrophys. J. Lett. 811, L14, arXiv:1506.05793 [gr-qc]. Sol` a, J., A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez (2017a), Astrophys. J. 836 (1), 43, arXiv:1602.02103 [astro-ph.CO]. Sol` a, J., A. G´ omez-Valent, and J. de Cruz P´ erez (2017b), Phys. Lett. B774, 317, arXiv:1705.06723 [astro-ph.CO]....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[29]

The cosmic lithium problem: an observer's perspective

Spite, M., F. Spite, and P. Bonifacio (2012), Mem. Soc. As- tron. Ital. Suppl. 22, 9, arXiv:1208.1190 [astro-ph.CO]. Stadler, J., C. Bœhm, and O. Mena (2019), JCAP 08, 014, arXiv:1903.00540 [astro-ph.CO]. Starobinsky, A. A. (1987), Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[30]

Steﬀen, A. T., I. Strateva, W. N. Brandt, D. M. Alexan- der, A. M. Koekemoer, B. D. Lehmer, D. P. Schneider, and C. Vignali (2006), Astron. J. 131, 2826, arXiv:astro- ph/0602407. Steigman, G. (2007), Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 463, arXiv:0712.1100 [astro-ph]. Steinhardt, P. J. (1997), in Critical Problems in Physics , edited by V. L. Fitch, D. R. Marl...

work page arXiv 2006
[31]

Cosmological Tracking Solutions

Steinhardt, P. J., L.-M. Wang, and I. Zlatev (1999), Phys. Rev. D 59, 123504, arXiv:astro-ph/9812313. Strigari, L. E., M. Kaplinghat, and J. S. Bullock (2007), Phys. Rev. D 75, 061303, arXiv:astro-ph/0606281. Subramanian, K. (2016), Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 (7), 076901, arXiv:1504.02311 [astro-ph.CO]. Sun, W., K. Jiao, and T.-J. Zhang (2021), Astrophys. J. 91...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[32]

Zeldovich (1972), Comments Astrophys

Sunyaev, R., and Y. Zeldovich (1972), Comments Astrophys. Space Phys. 4,

work page 1972
[33]

A., and Y

Sunyaev, R. A., and Y. B. Zeldovich (1980), Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 18,

work page 1980
[34]

The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory

Susskind, L. (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0302219. Suyu, S. H., T.-C. Chang, F. Courbin, and T. Okumura (2018), Space Sci. Rev. 214 (5), 91, arXiv:1801.07262 [astro-ph.CO]. Suyu, S. H., P. J. Marshall, M. W. Auger, S. Hilbert, R. D. Blandford, L. V. E. Koopmans, C. D. Fassnacht, and T. Treu (2010), Astrophys. J. 711, 201, arXiv:0910.2773 [astro-ph.CO]. Suyu, S. H...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[35]

Review on Generalized Uncertainty Principle

Tawﬁk, A. N., and A. M. Diab (2015), Rept. Prog. Phys. 78, 126001, arXiv:1509.02436 [physics.gen-ph]. Taylor, S. R., and J. R. Gair (2012), Phys. Rev. D86, 023502, arXiv:1204.6739 [astro-ph.CO]. Tegmark, M., et al. (SDSS) (2006), Phys. Rev. D74, 123507, arXiv:astro-ph/0608632 [astro-ph]. Terlevich, R., E. Terlevich, J. Melnick, R. Ch´ avez, M. Plionis, F....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[36]

Dipole anisotropy in sky brightness and source count distribution in radio NVSS data

Tiwari, P., R. Kothari, A. Naskar, S. Nadkarni-Ghosh, and P. Jain (2014), Astropart. Phys. 61, 1, arXiv:1307.1947 [astro-ph.CO]. Tiwari, P., and A. Nusser (2016), JCAP 03, 062, arXiv:1509.02532 [astro-ph.CO]. Tojeiro, R., et al. (2012), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 424, 2339, arXiv:1203.6565 [astro-ph.CO]. Tollerud, E. J., M. Boylan-Kolchin, and J. S. Bull...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[37]

Tonry, J. L., J. P. Blakeslee, E. A. Ajhar, and A. Dressler (1997), Astrophys. J. 475, 399, arXiv:astro-ph/9609113. 103 Tornatore, L., A. Ferrara, and R. Schneider (2007), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 382, 945, arXiv:0707.1433 [astro- ph]. de la Torre, S., et al. (2013), Astron. Astrophys. 557, A54, arXiv:1303.2622 [astro-ph.CO]. Tram, T., R. Vallance, and...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997
[38]

Tsagas, C. G. (2011), Phys. Rev. D 84, 063503, arXiv:1107.4045 [astro-ph.CO]. Tsagas, C. G., and M. I. Kadiltzoglou (2015), Phys. Rev. D 92 (4), 043515, arXiv:1507.04266 [gr-qc]. Tsagas, C. G., M. I. Kadiltzoglou, and K. Asvesta (2021), Astrophys. Space Sci. 366 (9), 90, arXiv:2105.09267 [gr-qc]. Tsiapi, P., and S. Basilakos (2019), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[39]

B., and J

Tully, R. B., and J. R. Fisher (1977), Astron. Astrophys. 54,

work page 1977
[40]

Turnbull, S. J., M. J. Hudson, H. A. Feldman, M. Hicken, R. P. Kirshner, and R. Watkins (2012), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 420, 447, arXiv:1111.0631 [astro-ph.CO]. Turner, M. S. (1983), Phys. Rev. D 28,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[41]

Turner, M. S. (1991), Phys. Rev. D 44,

work page 1991
[42]

Turner, M. S. (2022), 10.1146/annurev-nucl-111119-041046, arXiv:2201.04741 [astro-ph.CO]. Turner, M. S., and L. M. Widrow (1988), Phys. Rev. D 37,

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111119-041046 2022
[43]

Model-independent cosmic acceleration and type Ia supernovae intrinsic luminosity redshift dependence

Tutusaus, I., B. Lamine, and A. Blanchard (2019), Astron. Astrophys. 625, A15, arXiv:1803.06197 [astro-ph.CO]. Tutusaus, I., B. Lamine, A. Dupays, and A. Blanchard (2017), Astron. Astrophys. 602, A73, arXiv:1706.05036 [astro-ph.CO]. van Uitert, E., et al. (2018), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476 (4), 4662, arXiv:1706.05004 [astro-ph.CO]. Unnikrishnan, C. S...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[44]

Valcin, D., J. L. Bernal, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, and B. D. Wandelt (2020), arXiv:2007.06594 [astro-ph.CO]. Valkenburg, W. (2012), JCAP 01, 047, arXiv:1106.6042 [astro-ph.CO]. Van De Bruck, C., and J. Mifsud (2018), Phys. Rev. D97 (2), 023506, arXiv:1709.04882 [astro-ph.CO]. VandenBerg, D. A., H. E. Bond, E. P. Nelan, P. E. Nissen, G. H. Schaefer, and D. Ha...

work page arXiv 2020
[45]

Varma, V., S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiﬀer (2019), Phys. Rev. Research. 1, 033015, arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]. Vattis, K., S. M. Koushiappas, and A. Loeb (2019), Phys. Rev. D99 (12), 121302, arXiv:1903.06220 [astro-ph.CO]. Velten, H., I. Costa, and W. Zimdahl (2021), Phys. Rev. D 104 (6), 06350...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[46]

(1960), Phys

Weber, J. (1960), Phys. Rev. 117,

work page 1960
[47]

Melia (2022), arXiv:2202.07865 [astro- ph.CO]

Wei, J.-J., and F. Melia (2022), arXiv:2202.07865 [astro- ph.CO]. Wei, J.-J., X.-F. Wu, and F. Melia (2016), Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 463 (2), 1144, arXiv:1608.02070 [astro-ph.CO]. Weinberg, D. H., J. S. Bullock, F. Governato, R. Kuzio de Naray, and A. H. G. Peter (2015), Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 112, 12249, arXiv:1306.0913 [astro-ph.CO]. Weinberg, D. H...

work page arXiv 2022
[48]

(1989), Rev

Weinberg, S. (1989), Rev. Mod. Phys. 61,

work page 1989
[49]

Future Supernovae observations as a probe of dark energy

Weinberg, S. (2008), Cosmology. Weller, J., and A. Albrecht (2002), Phys. Rev. D 65, 103512, arXiv:astro-ph/0106079. Wetterich, C. (1988), Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668, arXiv:1711.03844 [hep-th]. Wetterich, C. (1995), Astron. Astrophys.301, 321, arXiv:hep- th/9408025. Whalen, D. J., C. L. Fryer, D. E. Holz, A. Heger, S. E. Woosley, M. Stiavelli, W. Even, and L....

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[50]

Wiltshire, D. L., P. R. Smale, T. Mattsson, and R. Watkins (2013), Phys. Rev. D 88, 083529, arXiv:1201.5371 [astro- ph.CO]. Wittman, D. M., J. A. Tyson, D. Kirkman, I. Dell’Antonio, and G. Bernstein (2000), Nature 405, 143, arXiv:astro- ph/0003014. Wittner, M., G. Laverda, O. F. Piattella, and L. Amendola (2020), JCAP 07, 019, arXiv:2003.08950 [gr-qc]. Wo...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[51]

Sample variance in the local measurements of the Hubble constant

Wu, H.-Y., and D. Huterer (2017), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471 (4), 4946, arXiv:1706.09723 [astro-ph.CO]. Wyman, M., D. H. Rudd, R. Vanderveld, and W. Hu (2014), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (5), 051302, arXiv:1307.7715 [astro- ph.CO]. Xia, D.-M., and S. Wang (2016), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 463 (1), 952, arXiv:1608.04545 [astro-ph.CO]. Xiao, L., L. Zhang, ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab35e3 2017
[52]

(1937), Astrophys

Zwicky, F. (1937), Astrophys. J. 86,

work page 1937
[53]

A., et al

Zyla, P. A., et al. (Particle Data Group) (2020), PTEP 2020 (8), 083C01

work page 2020