pith. sign in

arxiv: 2407.10139 · v4 · submitted 2024-07-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Dispersion in the Hubble-Lema\^(i)tre constant measurements from gravitational clustering

Swati Gavas , J S Bagla , Nishikanta Khandai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords Hubble constantpeculiar velocitiesN-body simulationsgravitational clusteringlarge scale structuredistance ladderlocal universe
0
0 comments X

The pith

Peculiar velocities from gravitational clustering cause dispersion in local H0 estimates exceeding quoted statistical errors below 135 Mpc/h.

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

The paper uses N-body simulations to quantify how peculiar velocities induced by gravitational clustering affect estimates of the Hubble-Lemaître constant. Observers are placed inside dark matter halos to sample the distribution of estimated H0 values across different locations in the simulated universe. The dispersion in this distribution is large at small scales and shrinks with increasing separation, reaching the level of statistical errors reported by Planck and SH0ES only beyond roughly 135 Mpc/h and 220 Mpc/h. A negative correlation appears between local over-density and the deviation of local H0 from the global value, and mock measurements from Milky Way-sized halos show distributions with large tails that depend on the lowest distance included.

Core claim

Using N-body simulations, the distribution of estimated H0 values for observers located in dark matter halos exhibits large dispersion at small scales that diminishes as separations increase, reaching the quoted statistical error levels of Planck and SH0ES measurements well beyond ∼135 Mpc/h and ∼220 Mpc/h respectively. Deviations more significant than 5% of the global values occur frequently at scales up to 40 Mpc/h, and the cumulative effect in mock measurements from Milky Way-sized halos produces a large tail in the H0 distribution that depends on the lowest distance used.

What carries the argument

The distribution of H0 estimates derived from recession velocities that include peculiar motions, sampled by placing observers inside dark matter halos in simulated large-scale structure.

If this is right

  • Measurements at smaller scales are susceptible to errors arising from peculiar motions.
  • This error can propagate to measurements at larger scales in the distance ladder.
  • Negative correlation exists between the local over-density around an observer and the deviation of the local H0 from the global value.
  • Deviations of a few percent from the global value cannot be ruled out in measurements from Milky Way-sized halos.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Local H0 measurements may need to be restricted to scales larger than 200 Mpc/h to minimize peculiar velocity effects.
  • The observed Hubble tension could partly arise from such dispersion if many local measurements are affected by clustering.
  • Future surveys could test this by measuring the variance in H0 as a function of scale.

Load-bearing premise

That the N-body simulations accurately reproduce the peculiar velocity field experienced by real galaxies and that placing observers inside dark matter halos is a faithful proxy for the locations of actual H0 observers.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of the scale-dependent variance in H0 estimates from real galaxy catalogs at separations from 10 to 300 Mpc/h, compared against the simulated distribution width.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2407.10139 by J S Bagla, Nishikanta Khandai, Swati Gavas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Measurements of the Hubble-Lema\^{i}tre constant ($H_0$) require us to estimate the distance and recession velocity of galaxies independently. Gravitational clustering that leads to the formation of galaxies and the large scale structure leaves its imprints in the form of peculiar velocities of galaxies. In general, it is not possible to disentangle the peculiar velocity component from the recession velocities of galaxies, and this introduces an uncertainty in the determination of $H_0$. Using N-body simulations, we quantify the impact of peculiar velocities on the $H_0$ estimation. We consider observers to be located in dark matter halos and compute the distribution of the estimated value of $H_0$ across all such observers. We find that the dispersion of this distribution is large at small scales, and it diminishes as we go to large separations, reaching the level of the quoted statistical error in Planck and SH0ES measurements well beyond $\sim$135 Mpc/h and $\sim$220 Mpc/h, respectively. Measurements at smaller scales are susceptible to errors arising from peculiar motions, and this error can propagate to measurements at larger scales in the distance ladder. Notably, we observe a negative correlation between the local over-density around an observer and the deviation of the local and the global value of $H_0$. We show that deviations more significant than 5% of the global values can be encountered frequently at scales of up to 40 Mpc/h, and this is considerably larger than the statistical errors on local estimates. We also analyse the cumulative effect of such errors on mock measurements of $H_0$ as measured from Milky Way-sized halos. We find that this error is sensitive to the lowest distance at which we use measurements. The distribution of $H_0$ in mock measurements has a large tail, and deviations of a few percent from the global value cannot be ruled out.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses N-body simulations to quantify the dispersion in local estimates of the Hubble-Lemaître constant (H0) arising from peculiar velocities. Observers are placed inside dark matter halos, local H0 is computed from the simulated velocity field, and the resulting distribution is analyzed as a function of scale. The central claims are that dispersion decreases with separation, reaching the statistical error levels quoted by Planck and SH0ES beyond ~135 Mpc/h and ~220 Mpc/h respectively; deviations >5% occur frequently up to 40 Mpc/h; a negative correlation exists between local over-density and H0 deviation; and mock distance-ladder measurements from Milky Way-sized halos show a large tail sensitive to the minimum distance used.

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the work supplies concrete, simulation-derived thresholds for the scale at which peculiar-velocity systematics become sub-dominant to current statistical errors on H0. The explicit reporting of dispersion values, the density–H0 correlation, and the cumulative effect on mock ladder measurements provides a falsifiable benchmark that can be tested with future peculiar-velocity surveys. The approach is free of circularity with observed H0 data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the simulation parameters (box size, particle number, force resolution, halo finder, and exact procedure for subtracting the global Hubble flow from the line-of-sight velocity) are not reported. These quantities directly determine the peculiar-velocity power spectrum and therefore set the numerical values of the dispersion thresholds (135 Mpc/h, 220 Mpc/h, 40 Mpc/h) that constitute the paper’s headline results.
  2. [Observer placement and velocity estimation] Observer placement and velocity estimation section: the choice to locate observers exclusively inside dark-matter halos is adopted without any reported comparison to observational constraints on the velocity field (e.g., from peculiar-velocity surveys) or to alternative proxies (luminosity-weighted or star-forming galaxies). Because the reported distribution of local H0 and the negative density–H0 correlation rest on this modeling choice, the absence of such validation is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and text repeatedly refer to “the quoted statistical error in Planck and SH0ES measurements” without citing the specific error values or papers used for comparison; adding these references would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The two major comments identify genuine gaps in the reporting of methods and justification of modeling choices. We address each below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested information.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the simulation parameters (box size, particle number, force resolution, halo finder, and exact procedure for subtracting the global Hubble flow from the line-of-sight velocity) are not reported. These quantities directly determine the peculiar-velocity power spectrum and therefore set the numerical values of the dispersion thresholds (135 Mpc/h, 220 Mpc/h, 40 Mpc/h) that constitute the paper’s headline results.

    Authors: We agree that these parameters were omitted from the original Methods section. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that reports the simulation box size, particle number, force resolution, halo finder algorithm, and the precise procedure used to subtract the global Hubble flow from the line-of-sight peculiar velocities. This will make the numerical values of the reported dispersion thresholds fully reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Observer placement and velocity estimation] Observer placement and velocity estimation section: the choice to locate observers exclusively inside dark-matter halos is adopted without any reported comparison to observational constraints on the velocity field (e.g., from peculiar-velocity surveys) or to alternative proxies (luminosity-weighted or star-forming galaxies). Because the reported distribution of local H0 and the negative density–H0 correlation rest on this modeling choice, the absence of such validation is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original text provides no explicit comparison to peculiar-velocity survey data or alternative galaxy proxies. In the revision we will expand the relevant section to (i) state the physical motivation for placing observers in halos (they trace the locations of galaxies), (ii) discuss possible biases relative to luminosity- or star-formation-weighted tracers, and (iii) add a brief comparison, where feasible, to existing peculiar-velocity catalogs or note the limitation if additional analysis is required. We view this as a necessary clarification rather than a fundamental change to the simulation results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: direct simulation measurements

full rationale

The paper's central results follow from placing observers inside dark-matter halos in N-body runs and directly computing local recession velocities plus peculiar velocities to obtain a distribution of estimated H0 values; the global H0 is an input parameter of the simulation, and the reported scale-dependent dispersion, density-H0 correlation, and mock Milky-Way measurements are obtained by straightforward averaging and binning over the simulated observers without any parameter fitting to external H0 data, without redefinition of quantities in terms of the target result, and without load-bearing self-citations. All steps remain self-contained computations inside the simulated volume.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of standard N-body gravity in a Lambda-CDM background and on the assumption that halo-centric observers sample the same velocity field as real galaxies; no new entities or fitted parameters are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Lambda-CDM cosmology and Newtonian gravity govern the N-body evolution
    Invoked when the simulations are used to generate the peculiar velocity field.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5891 in / 1341 out tokens · 24659 ms · 2026-05-23T22:53:36.144634+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

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    (3) Here, N represents the total number of halos within vol- ume V , ˆ xik corresponds to the unit vector pointing in the direction of the ith halo from the observer’s location

    δH is a fractional deviation of the local Hubble value from the global Hubble value δH ≡ HL − HG HG . (3) Here, N represents the total number of halos within vol- ume V , ˆ xik corresponds to the unit vector pointing in the direction of the ith halo from the observer’s location. Averaging over all angles clearly reduces the dispersion in values, and hence...

    work page

  2. [2]

    W. L. Freedman and B. F. Madore, The Hubble Con- stant, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics48, 673 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    R. B. Tully, The Hubble Constant: A Historical Review (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Verde, N

    L. Verde, N. Sch¨ oneberg, and H. Gil-Mar´ ın, A tale of many H0 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar´ ın, and L. Verde, A tale of two (or more) h’s, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (04), 023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    J., Barreiro, R

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ash- down, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., Basak, S., Battye, R., Benabed, K., Bernard, J.-P., Bersanelli, M., Bielewicz, P., Bock, J. J., Bond, J. R., Borrill, J., Bouchet, F. R., Boulanger, F., Bucher, M., Burigana, C., Butler, R. C., Calabrese, ...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with ΛCDM, The As- trophysical Journal Letters 908, L6 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, T. G. Brink, A. V. Filippenko, S. Hoff- mann, S. W. Jha, W. Darcy Kenworthy, J. Mackenty, B. E. Stahl, and W. Zheng, A Comprehensive Measure- ment of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s /Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble S...

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A. G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz, R. Kessler, T. M. Davis, S. Hinton, D. Jones, W. D. Kenworthy, E. R. Peterson, K. Said, G. Taylor, N. Ali, P. Armstrong, P. Charvu, A. Dwomoh, C. Mel- dorf, A. Palmese, H. Qu, B. M. Rose, B. Sanchez, C. W. Stubbs, M. Vincenzi, C. M. Wood, P. J. Brown, R. Chen, K. Chambers, D. A. Coulter, M....

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    P. Shah, P. Lemos, and O. Lahav, A buyers guide to the Hubble constant, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 29, 10.1007/s00159-021-00137-4 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-021-00137-4 2021

  11. [11]

    Di Valentino, L

    E. Di Valentino, L. A. Anchordoqui, ¨Ozg¨ ur Akarsu, Y. Ali-Haimoud, L. Amendola, N. Arendse, M. Asgari, M. Ballardini, S. Basilakos, E. Battistelli, M. Benetti, S. Birrer, F. R. Bouchet, M. Bruni, E. Calabrese, D. Camarena, S. Capozziello, A. Chen, J. Chluba, A. Chudaykin, E. Colg´ ain, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, P. de Bernardis, J. de Cruz P´ erez, J. Delabrouil...

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Efstathiou, To H0 or not to H0?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 505, 3866 (2021)

    G. Efstathiou, To H0 or not to H0?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 505, 3866 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Vagnozzi, Seven Hints That Early-Time New Physics Alone Is Not Sufficient to Solve the Hubble Tension, Uni- verse 9, 393 (2023)

    S. Vagnozzi, Seven Hints That Early-Time New Physics Alone Is Not Sufficient to Solve the Hubble Tension, Uni- verse 9, 393 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    M¨ ortsell, A

    E. M¨ ortsell, A. Goobar, J. Johansson, and S. Dhawan, Sensitivity of the Hubble Constant Determination to Cepheid Calibration, The Astrophysical Journal933, 212 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Huterer and H.-Y

    D. Huterer and H.-Y. Wu, Not empty enough: a local void cannot solve the H0 tension (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Majaess, The Concerning S H0ES Hubble Constant (2024)

    D. Majaess, The Concerning S H0ES Hubble Constant (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    P. Shah, T. M. Davis, D. Bacon, J. Frieman, L. Galbany, R. Kessler, O. Lahav, J. Lee, C. Lidman, R. C. Nichol, M. Sako, D. Scolnic, M. Sullivan, M. Vincenzi, P. Wise- man, S. Allam, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, O. Alves, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, K. Bechtol, E. Bertin, S. Bocquet, D. Brooks, D. Brout, A. Carnero Rosell, J. Carretero, F. J. Castander, ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Camilleri, T

    R. Camilleri, T. M. Davis, S. R. Hinton, P. Armstrong, D. Brout, L. Galbany, K. Glazebrook, J. Lee, C. Lidman, R. C. Nichol, M. Sako, D. Scolnic, P. Shah, M. Smith, M. Sullivan, B. O. S´ anchez, M. Vincenzi, P. Wiseman, S. Allam, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, F. Andrade- Oliveira, J. Asorey, S. Avila, D. Bacon, K. Bechtol, S. Bocquet, D. Brooks, E. Buckley-...

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Sample variance in the local measurements of the Hubble constant

    H.-Y. Wu and D. Huterer, Sample variance in the lo- cal measurements of the Hubble constant, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society471, 4946 (2017), arXiv:1706.09723 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    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, C. J. A. P. Martins, K. Migkas, E. ´O Colg´ ain, P. Pranav, L. Shamir, A. K. Singal, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, J. Wagner, S.-J. Wang, D. L. Wiltshire, S. Yeung, L. Yin, and W. Zhao, Is the ob- servable Universe consistent ...

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    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, Analysing the large- scale bulk flow using cosmicflows4: increasing tension with the standard cosmological model, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 524, 1885 (2023), arXiv:2302.02028 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Ruiz-Lapuente and J

    P. Ruiz-Lapuente and J. I. G. Hern´ andez, ”SNe Ia twins for life” towards a precise determination of H0 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Huang, S.-J

    L. Huang, S.-J. Wang, and W.-W. Yu, No-go guide for the Hubble tension: late-time or local-scale new physics (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Kalbouneh, C

    B. Kalbouneh, C. Marinoni, and R. Maartens, Cosmog- raphy of the Local Universe by Multipole Analysis of the Expansion Rate Fluctuation Field (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Carreres, D

    B. Carreres, D. Rosselli, J. E. Bautista, F. Feinstein, D. Fouchez, B. Racine, C. Ravoux, B. Sanchez, G. Dimi- triadis, A. Goobar, J. Johansson, J. Nordin, M. Rigault, M. Smith, M. Amenouche, M. Aubert, C. Barjou- Delayre, U. Burgaz, W. D. Kenworthy, T. De Jaeger, S. Dhawan, L. Galbany, M. Ginolin, D. Kuhn, M. Kowal- ski, T. E. M¨ uller-Bravo, P. E. Nugen...

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Giani, C

    L. Giani, C. Howlett, K. Said, T. Davis, and S. Vagnozzi, An effective description of Laniakea: impact on cosmol- ogy and the local determination of the Hubble constant, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024 (1), 071, arXiv:2311.00215 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Maartens, J

    R. Maartens, J. Santiago, C. Clarkson, B. Kalbouneh, and C. Marinoni, Covariant cosmography: the observer- dependence of the Hubble parameter (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    G. S. Anand, A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, R. Beaton, S. Caser- tano, S. Li, D. I. Makarov, L. N. Makarova, R. B. Tully, R. I. Anderson, L. Breuval, A. Dolphin, I. D. Karachent- sev, L. M. Macri, and D. Scolnic, Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances with JWST: An Absolute Calibration in NGC 4258 and First Applications to Type Ia Super- nova Hosts (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    A. G. Riess, G. S. Anand, W. Yuan, S. Casertano, A. Dol- phin, L. M. Macri, L. Breuval, D. Scolnic, M. Perrin, and R. I. Anderson, JWST Observations Reject Unrecognized Crowding of Cepheid Photometry as an Explanation for the Hubble Tension at 8σ Confidence, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 962, L17 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    E. L. Turner, R. Cen, and J. P. Ostriker, The relation of local measures of Hubble’s constant to its global value, The Astronomical Journal 103, 1427 (1992)

    work page 1992

  31. [31]

    On the local variation of the Hubble constant

    I. Odderskov, S. Hannestad, and T. Haugbølle, On the local variation of the Hubble constant, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (10), 028, arXiv:1407.7364 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Cosmic variance of the local Hubble flow in large-scale cosmological simulations

    R. Wojtak, A. Knebe, W. A. Watson, I. T. Iliev, S. Heß, D. Rapetti, G. Yepes, and S. Gottl¨ ober, Cosmic vari- ance of the local Hubble flow in large-scale cosmological simulations, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 438, 1805 (2014), arXiv:1312.0276 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    The variance of the locally measured Hubble parameter explained with different estimators

    I. Odderskov, S. Hannestad, and J. Brandbyge, The vari- ance of the locally measured Hubble parameter explained with different estimators, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017 (3), 022, arXiv:1701.05391 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Springel, R

    V. Springel, R. Pakmor, O. Zier, and M. Reinecke, Sim- ulating cosmic structure formation with the GADGET-4 code, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506, 2871 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, Gravitational instability: An approxi- mate theory for large density perturbations., Astronomy and Astrophysics 5, 84 (1970)

    work page 1970

  36. [36]

    S. F. Shandarin and Y. B. Zeldovich, The large-scale structure of the universe: Turbulence, intermittency, structures in a self-gravitating medium, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 61, 185 (1989)

    work page 1989

  37. [37]

    Lahav, P

    O. Lahav, P. B. Lilje, J. R. Primack, and M. J. Rees, Dy- namical effects of the cosmological constant., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 251, 128 (1991)

    work page 1991

  38. [38]

    Dolag and R

    K. Dolag and R. Sunyaev, Relative velocity of dark mat- ter and baryons in clusters of galaxies and measurements of their peculiar velocities, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 432, 1600–1615 (2013)

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    W. A. Hellwing, M. Schaller, C. S. Frenk, T. Theuns, J. Schaye, R. G. Bower, and R. A. Crain, The effect of baryons on redshift space distortions and cosmic density and velocity fields in the eagle simulation, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 461, L11–L15 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Kuruvilla, N

    J. Kuruvilla, N. Aghanim, and I. G. McCarthy, Imprint of baryons and massive neutrinos on velocity statistics, Astronomy and; Astrophysics 644, A170 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    A. M. Whitford, C. Howlett, and T. M. Davis, Evaluating bulk flow estimators for CosmicFlows-4 measurements, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526, 3051 (2023), arXiv:2306.11269 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Hoffman, A

    Y. Hoffman, A. Valade, N. I. Libeskind, J. G. Sorce, R. B. Tully, S. Pfeifer, S. Gottl¨ ober, and D. Pomar` ede, The large-scale velocity field from the Cosmicflows-4 data, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 527, 3788 (2024), arXiv:2311.01340 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Lopes, A

    M. Lopes, A. Bernui, C. Franco, and F. Avila, Bulk Flow Motion Detection in the Local Universe with Pan- theon+ Type Ia Supernovae, Astrophysical Journal 967, 47 (2024), arXiv:2405.11077 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024