Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Estimating constraints on cosmological parameters via the canonical and the differential redshift drift with SKA HI 21-cm observations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that half a year of SKA HI 21-cm redshift-drift observations can constrain cosmological parameters to sub-cm/s precision, with the differential drift method outperforming the canonical method for dark-energy parameters.

desk verdict The paper's central forecast is invalid: it reports derivatives as parameter uncertainties, so the headline mm/s constraints do not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13583 v1 pith:5TKWPBTO submitted 2025-04-18 astro-ph.CO

Jiangang Kang , Guangyuan Song , Tong Jie Zhang , Ming Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords redshiftdriftSandage-LoebeffectHI21-cmlineSquareKilometreArraydarkenergyequationofstatecosmologicalparameterconstraintsCPLparametrizationdifferential
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that redshift-drift observations of the HI 21-cm line with the Square Kilometre Array, lasting only half a year at spectral resolutions of 0.001 Hz or 0.002 Hz, can constrain cosmological parameters to sub-cm/s precision. It compares two ways of using the drift signal: the canonical redshift drift relative to the present epoch, and the differential redshift drift between two non-zero redshifts, and it evaluates both under the Chevallier–Polarski–Linder dark-energy parametrization. The authors argue that both methods deliver parameter accuracies at the millimeter-per-second level or better, that the differential method is the stronger of the two, and that it is especially advantageous when constraining the matter density and the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters together. If correct, this would make real-time cosmology feasible and would establish HI 21-cm redshift drift as a competitive independent probe of cosmic acceleration at $z<1$.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two redshift-drift observables: the canonical velocity drift $\Delta v = (cH_0\Delta t)\left(1 - E(z)/(1+z)\right)$ relative to the present epoch, and the differential drift $\Delta v_{\mathrm{ir}} = (cH_0\Delta t)\left(E(z_r)/(1+z_r) - E(z_i)/(1+z_i)\right)$ between a reference and an intervening source. These are evaluated under the CPL Hubble parameter $E^2(z)=\Omega_m(1+z)^3 + \Omega_\phi(1+z)^{3(1+w_0+w_a)}e^{-3w_a z/(1+z)}$. The workhorse of the analysis is the derivative-based precision metric $\sigma_p = \partial(\Delta v)/\partial p$, whose value in cm/s is read as the parameter's uncertainty, combined with the velocity-noise model $\sigma_v = \sigma_n N^{-1/2}(1+z)\lambda \Delta T^{-1/2}$ for SKA source counts.

What would settle it

Compute $\sigma_{\Omega_m}$, $\sigma_{w_0}$, and $\sigma_{w_a}$ using standard error propagation $\sigma_p = \sigma_v / |\partial(\Delta v)/\partial p|$ with $\sigma_v$ from the paper's equation (11); if, at the fiducial redshift and for the 0.001 Hz dataset, the resulting dimensionless uncertainties (e.g., $\sigma_{\Omega_m} \approx 0.2$ rather than 0.2 cm/s, or $\sigma_{w_0}$ exceeding 1) do not reproduce the paper's sub-cm/s claim, the headline precision numbers fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the precision of a cosmological parameter obtainable from redshift drift is characterized by the partial derivative of the velocity drift with respect to that parameter, $\partial(\Delta v)/\partial p$, and that using this measure the SKA HI 21-cm data with 0.001 Hz and 0.002 Hz spectral resolution over $\Delta T=0.5$ yr yield parameter precisions below 1 cm/s. The canonical method gives ranges such as $\sigma_{\Omega_m}\approx 0.08$–$0.5$ cm/s and $\sigma_{w_0}\approx 0.2$–$1$ cm/s, while the differential method keeps all parameter precisions below 0.5 cm/s and gives the tightest bounds on $w_a$, with values near zero to 0.2 cm/s. The authors conclude that the differential redshift drift is the preferred technique when simultaneously constraining $\Omega_m$ and the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters $w_0$ and $w_a$, while the canonical method remains competitive for $\Omega_m$ alone.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the partial derivative of the redshift-drift velocity with respect to a parameter, measured in cm/s per unit of that parameter, can be read directly as the uncertainty on that parameter, without dividing by that derivative to convert velocity error into parameter error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SKA HI 21-cm observations at 0.001 Hz spectral resolution over 0.5 yr should measure redshift-drift velocities with $\sigma_v$ between about 0.005 and 0.15 cm/s out to $z=1$, enough to detect the drift signal.
  • Under the paper's precision metric, every CPL parameter ($h$, $\Omega_m$, $w_0$, $w_a$) can be constrained below 1 cm/s, with the differential method keeping all values below 0.5 cm/s.
  • The differential redshift drift method is forecast to outperform the canonical method for combined constraints on $\Omega_m$ and dark-energy equation-of-state parameters, while the canonical method suffices for $\Omega_m$ alone.
  • Higher spectral resolution (0.001 Hz vs 0.002 Hz) tightens the forecast constraints for both methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the derivative-based 'precision' is converted to a conventional parameter uncertainty via $\sigma_p = \sigma_v / |\partial(\Delta v)/\partial p|$, the quoted cm/s numbers become sensitivities rather than final uncertainties; for parameters whose derivative is small, the actual uncertainty could be much larger than 1 cm/s, so the headline precision claim would need renormalization.
  • A natural next step would be a Fisher-matrix forecast that combines the drift signal across many redshift bins and includes the full covariance between parameters; that would show whether the claimed advantages of the differential method survive into a standard confidence ellipse in the ($\Omega_m$, $w_0$, $w_a$) plane.
  • The same derivative machinery could be applied to other redshift-drift probes, such as the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest at $z>2$, to compare forecast precision across facilities without changing the underlying formalism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to estimate the precision with which the SKA HI 21-cm redshift drift signal can constrain cosmological parameters in a flat CPL model (parameters h, Ωm, w0, wa). Two observation strategies are considered: the canonical redshift drift and the differential redshift drift, using spectral resolutions of 0.001 Hz and 0.002 Hz over ΔT = 0.5 yr. The authors compute the velocity drift signal and its partial derivatives with respect to the model parameters, report these derivatives as 'parameter precision' values in cm/s, and conclude that both methods achieve mm/s-level parameter constraints, with the differential method being superior for simultaneously constraining Ωm and the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters. The paper also discusses systematic effects and target selection criteria.

Significance. If the central result were valid, it would be a significant step toward establishing SKA HI 21-cm redshift drift as a competitive, model-independent probe of cosmic acceleration at z<1. The paper correctly presents the standard redshift drift equations and illustrates the differential drift signal amplitude. However, the load-bearing claim—that the partial derivative ∂(Δv)/∂p constitutes the precision of the parameter p—is statistically incorrect, and this flaw invalidates essentially all quantitative results in Section 4. As a sensitivity analysis of the drift signal's parameter dependence, the paper could have some pedagogical value, but it does not deliver a parameter-constraint forecast. No code or machine-checkable derivations are provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1 and §4, Eqs. (7)–(10), Tables 1–2] The paper identifies the 'precision of the parameter' σp with the partial derivative ∂(Δv)/∂p and reports it in cm/s. This is not a parameter uncertainty under standard error propagation: for a single parameter the correct expression is σp = σv / |∂Δv/∂p|, and for joint constraints one must invert the Fisher information matrix to account for parameter correlations and marginalization. The manuscript never divides by σv and never constructs a covariance matrix. Consequently, Figures 4–6 and Tables 1–2 report signal sensitivities (in cm/s per unit parameter), not uncertainties on Ωm, w0, wa. The abstract's claim of 'accuracy reaching the level of millimeter per second' for cosmological parameters is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Table 2, rows for 0.001 Hz and 0.002 Hz] Table 2 lists σ(ωa) with a negative lower bound (-0.01 cm/s for the 0.001 Hz case). A standard deviation cannot be negative, which confirms that the tabulated 'precision metrics' are not uncertainties in the usual statistical sense. This is a direct empirical indicator that the reported quantities are derivative amplitudes rather than parameter errors.
  3. [§2, Eq. (11) and Figure 2] The noise model σv = σn N^{-1/2} (1+z)^λ ΔT^{-1/2} relies on an ad hoc normalization σn and a spectral-resolution index λ that are fitted to a small set of 'actual measurements' without a derivation or an error budget. Even if the statistical methodology were corrected, the forecasted constraints would scale linearly with σv, so the unvalidated noise model is a load-bearing assumption. The authors should justify σn and λ from an instrumental noise model or from established SKA forecasting literature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including 'indenpendent' in the abstract, 'mesurement' in Section 5, and 'T able 1/2' in the captions. A thorough language edit is needed.
  2. [§2, Eqs. (7)–(10) vs. §4] Equations (7)–(10) give derivatives of the dimensionless quantity Sz, not of the velocity drift Δv, but Section 4 refers to ∂(Δv)/∂p. The connection between these quantities and the quoted cm/s values is not explicitly made, which contributes to the unit confusion in the reported 'precisions'.
  3. [Figures 4–6] The color bars in Figures 4–6 are labeled only with numeric values; their units (presumably cm/s) are not stated on the color bars themselves. The label 'n' for σn in the left panels is also ambiguous.
  4. [References] The references list three Cooke entries (2019, 2020a, 2020b) that appear to correspond to the same paper; the duplicated entries should be merged, and the in-text citations should be checked for consistency.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Parameter 'constraints' are defined as derivative magnitudes: the mm/s-level accuracies are guaranteed by construction, not by error propagation.

  1. self definitional [Section 1 (Introduction), Section 2 (Eqs. 7-10), Section 4 (Tables 1-2)]
    "The precision of the parameter is characterized by the partial derivative of the velocity drift concerning the parameter, ∂(∆v)/∂p, where ∆v denotes the velocity drift and p represents one of the model parameters (h, Ωm,w 0,wa). ... Under the assumptions of the fiducial flat CPL model, the observational precision of the parameters, represented as ∂S(z,v)/∂pi, is described by equations 7-10:"

    A parameter uncertainty cannot be the derivative itself: the one-parameter forecast is σp = σv / |∂(Δv)/∂p|, and joint constraints require the inverse Fisher matrix. The paper never divides by σv or inverts a covariance matrix; it simply labels ∂(Δv)/∂p as σp. Since the velocity drift is bounded by k = cH100ΔT = 1.532 cm/s, all these derivative magnitudes lie below ~1 cm/s automatically, so the headline mm/s or better precision follows by definition. Table 2 confirms the mislabeling by quoting σ(wa) = [-0.01, 0.14] cm/s, which is not a possible standard deviation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 (Eq. 11), Section 4 (Figure 3 and surrounding text)]
    "This relationship can be precisely modeled as follows: σv =σnN−1/2(1 + z)λ∆T−1/2 [cm/s] ... As shown in Figure 2, σn exhibits a linear decline with respect to both redshift and spectral resolution."

    The noise model in Eq. 11 is calibrated by fitting σn and λ to actual measurements (Figure 2), and Section 4 uses the resulting σv values to assert that the data have adequate precision for detection. However, those fitted noise values are never propagated into the parameter constraints: the reported σm, σw0, and σwa are just ∂(Δv)/∂p from Eqs. 7-10. The prediction of mm/s-level parameter constraints is therefore a restatement of derivative magnitudes plus a fitted calibration, not a statistical forecast from first principles.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim—that SKA HI 21-cm redshift drift can constrain Ωm, w0, and wa to mm/s or better—is forced by definition. Section 1 states that the precision of a parameter is characterized by ∂(Δv)/∂p, and Sections 2 and 4 then compute these derivatives and report them in Tables 1-2 as σm, σw0, and σwa in cm/s. No division by the spectroscopic uncertainty σv and no Fisher-matrix inversion appear anywhere, so the reported numbers are sensitivities, not parameter uncertainties. The bound k = 1.532 cm/s makes the sub-cm/s values automatic, independent of the noise model. The separate fitted noise model (Eq. 11) adds the appearance of an observational forecast but is not connected to the parameter constraints. I find no load-bearing self-citation chain: the redshift drift equations are standard and cited to independent literature, and the authors' self-citations in the introduction and target selection do not carry the quantitative argument. The paper is best read as a sensitivity analysis; as a parameter-constraint forecast it reduces, by definition and by fitted inputs, to its own inputs. Score 8 rather than 10 because the derivative calculation itself is real and the mislabeling, while pervasive, is a definitional slippage rather than a complete absence of content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative forecasts rest on the assumed flat CPL cosmology, the imported SKA noise model with fitted sigma_n and lambda, and unstated fiducial parameter values. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The free parameters listed above control essentially all numerical results.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma_n normalization constant = Approximately 1 cm/s for z<0.8, rising to about 5 cm/s for z>0.8; exact fitted form not given
    Introduced in Eq 11 and fitted to 'actual measurements' in Figure 2 whose provenance is not described. It directly scales all claimed velocity and parameter precision values.
  • lambda spectral-resolution index = 1.09 (0.001 Hz), 1.52 (0.002 Hz)
    Assigned without derivation in Section 2. It controls the (1+z)^lambda growth of velocity noise and enters every reported precision number.
  • fiducial CPL parameters (h, Omega_m, w0, wa) = Not stated in the paper
    Derivatives in Eqs 7-10 and all contour values depend on the assumed fiducial cosmology, but the paper never gives the values used, making the forecast unreproducible.
  • source count N = Text says 10^7 per 0.1 redshift interval; Figure 3 caption says total N approximately 10^8
    N enters Eq 11 as N^{-1/2}. The inconsistency changes sigma_v by a factor of about 3 and is not resolved.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Universe is spatially flat, Omega_k = 0.
    Stated in Section 1. Eq 4 sets Omega_phi = 1 - Omega_m, so curvature is excluded.
  • domain assumption Dark energy follows the CPL parameterization w(z) = w0 + wa z/(1+z).
    Eq 4 implements this parameterization; the claimed constraints on w0 and wa are meaningful only within this model.
  • domain assumption The noise model sigma_v = sigma_n N^{-1/2}(1+z)^lambda Delta T^{-1/2} from Kloeckner et al. 2015 is valid for SKA HI 21-cm observations.
    Eq 11 is imported from prior work and is not validated against simulations or real data in this paper.
  • domain assumption Peculiar accelerations and systematic errors average to negligible levels for sources at z>0.2.
    Section 3 argues that peculiar acceleration in redshift space is reduced to 10^-14 for z>0.2 and that random accelerations cancel over large samples.
  • domain assumption SKA will provide HI 21-cm samples with N = 10^7 objects per 0.1 redshift interval up to z=1.
    Section 2 presents this as an estimate without a source catalog or detailed survey simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Estimating constraints on cosmological parameters via the canonical and the differential redshift drift with SKA HI 21-cm observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TKWPBTO

@misc{pith2026250413583,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Estimating constraints on cosmological parameters via the canonical and the differential redshift drift with SKA HI 21-cm observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TKWPBTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13583}
}
abstract

Redshift drift effect, an observational probe that indenpendent of cosmological models, presents unique applications in specific cosmological epoch. By quantifying redshift drift signal , researchers can determine the rate of the Universe's accelerated expansion and impose constraints on cosmological models and parameters. This study evaluates the precision in cosmological parameters estimation derived from this signal via HI 21cm signal, that observed by the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope, with spectral resolutions of 0.001 Hz and 0.002 Hz over an observational period of $\Delta T = 0.5$ year, utilizing two established techniques: the canonical redshift drift and the differential redshift drift method. The primary objective of this project is to ascertain the rate of cosmic acceleration and establish a solid foundation for real-time cosmology. The results reveal that both the two methods impose highly precise constraints on cosmological parameters, with accuracy reaching the level of millimeter per second (mm/s) or better. However, the canonical method provides relatively less stringent compared to the differential approach. Furthermore, when solely constraining the matter density parameter $\Omega_m$, the strategy can be adapted to the canonical method. Nonetheless, the differential method exhibits clear advantages when simultaneously constraining the matter density parameter $\Omega_m$ and the equation of state of dark energy. These findings validate SKA's capability in detecting redshift drift and refining observational cosmology and indicates the effect can offer superior diagnostic capabilities compared to other techniques, provided that appropriate observational equipment or sufficient observational time is employed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13583 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The theoretical amplitude of the canonical and differ￾ential redshift drift methodologies as a function of the reference redshift zr over the observing period ∆T = 0.5 year. The black solid line illustrates the canonical redshift drift values, while the red solid and dashed lines represent the differential redshift drift values at intervening redshifts zi = 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. ∂Sz ∂Ωm = − h(1 + z) 3 2E(z)  1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relationship of the normalized constant σn with the spectral resolution and redshift is illustrated, with the green error bars indicating the actual measurements and the blue solid line representing the fitted values. of 0.001 Hz and 0.002 Hz. The parameter λ is assigned val￾ues of 1.09 for the 0.001 Hz data and 1.52 for the 0.002 Hz data. The SKA is designed to detect redshift drift sig￾nal with spectral resolu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The uncertainty in spectroscopic velocity drift (σv) is depicted as a function of redshift (z), observational period (∆T), and normalization constant (σn) in equation 11. In each plot, the black solid and red dotted contours illustrate the measured outcomes for spectral resolutions of 0.001 Hz and 0.002 Hz, respectively. The upper two panels demonstrate how the relationship (σv) varies with the normalization constan… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The constraints on the precision of parameters σm, σw0, and σwa, derived from the spectral resolution data of 0.001 Hz over a 0.5-year observational period using the canonical redshift drift method, suggest that higher spectral resolution data will significantly enhanc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The limitations on the precision of the parameters σm, σw0, and σwa when employing spectral data with a frequency resolution of 0.002 Hz over an observational duration of ∆T = 0.5 years using the standard redshift drift technique. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 zr 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The plotted differential redshift drift’s observational sensitivity of cosmological parameters h (top left), Ωm (top right), w0 (bottom left), and wa (bottom right) is depicted as a function of the reference redshift zr and the intervening redshift zi. The colormap ill…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cosmology from HI galaxy surveys with the SKA

    Abdalla F. B., et al., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14). p. 17 ( @eprint arXiv 1501.04035 ), @doi 10.22323/1.215.0017

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2022.3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASA...39...10A 39, e010

    Allison J. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2022.3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PASA...39...10A 39, e010

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2022.3 2022

  3. [3]

    S., Leite A

    Alves C. S., Leite A. C. O., Martins C. J. A. P., Matos J. G. B., Silva T. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.3607A 488, 3607

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1934 2019

  4. [4]

    Balbi A., Quercellini C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12407.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382.1623B 382, 1623

    arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    M., Gilmozzi R., Hall H

    Bandura K., et al., 2014, in Stepp L. M., Gilmozzi R., Hall H. J., eds, SPIE Proceedings. SPIE , @doi 10.1117/12.2054950 , https://doi.org/10.1117

    doi:10.1117/12.2054950 2014

  6. [6]

    Bessa P., Durrer R., Stock D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...11..093B 2023, 093

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/093 2023

  7. [7]

    arXiv:2409.09977

    Bessa P., Marra V., Castro T., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.09977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240909977B p. arXiv:2409.09977

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.09977 2024

  8. [8]

    F., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1907.04495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190704495B p

    Bolejko K., Wang C., Lewis G. F., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1907.04495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190704495B p. arXiv:1907.04495

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.04495 2019

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2203.05924

    Chakrabarti S., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220305924C p. arXiv:2203.05924

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chevallier M., Polarski D., 2001, @doi [Int. J. Mod. Phys.] 10.1142/S0218271801000822 , D10, 213

    2001 doi

  3. [13]

    Cooke R., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2044C 492, 2044

    doi

  4. [14]

    arXiv:2302.04365

    Cristiani S., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.04365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230204365C p. arXiv:2302.04365

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [15]

    J., Duchesne S

    Curran S. J., Duchesne S. W., Divoli A., Allison J. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1938 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.4197C 462, 4197

    2016 doi

  6. [16]

    arXiv:2503.14738

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14738 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314738D p. arXiv:2503.14738

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [17]

    Darling J., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/761/2/l26 , 761, L26

    2012 doi

  8. [18]

    Dutta R., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-022-09875-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JApA...43..103D 43, 103

    2022 doi

  9. [19]

    L., Sadler E

    Eden S. L., Sadler E. M., Pimbblet K. A., Mahony E. K., Yoon H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp.2497E

    2024 doi

  10. [21]

    Eikenberry S., et al., 2019b, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. p. 137 ( @eprint arXiv 1907.08271 )

    1907 arXiv

  11. [22]

    Esteves J., Martins C. J. A. P., Pereira B. G., Alves C. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508L..53E 508, L53

    2021 doi

  12. [23]

    M., Morganti R., Oosterloo T

    Ger \'e b K., Maccagni F. M., Morganti R., Oosterloo T. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..44G 575, A44

    2015 doi

  13. [24]

    arXiv:2412.15124

    G \'o mez-Valent A., Sol \`a Peracaula J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.15124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241215124G p. arXiv:2412.15124

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [25]

    Gupta N., Srianand R., Noterdaeme P., Petitjean P., Muzahid S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321609 , 558, A84

    2013 doi

  15. [26]

    Hu W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A..40H 675, A40

    2023 doi

  16. [27]

    Jiang P., et al., 2019, @doi [Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy] 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SCPMA..6259502J 62, 959502

    2019 doi

  17. [28]

    Jiao K., Zhang J.-C., Zhang T.-J., Yu H.-R., Zhu M., Li D., 2020, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/01/054 , 2020, 054

    2020 doi

  18. [29]

    H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewAR..48.1259K 48, 1259

    Kanekar N., Briggs F. H., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.030 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewAR..48.1259K 48, 1259

    2004 doi

  19. [30]

    N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...369...42K 369, 42

    Kanekar N., Chengalur J. N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...369...42K 369, 42

    2001 doi

  20. [32]

    N., 2001b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010545 , 373, 394

    Kanekar N., Ghosh T., Chengalur J. N., 2001b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010545 , 373, 394

    doi

  21. [33]

    Kang J., Lu C.-Z., Zhang T.-J., Zhu M., 2024, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ad48d1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RAA....24g5002K 24, 075002

    2024 doi

  22. [34]

    G., Linder E

    Kim A. G., Linder E. V., Edelstein J., Erskine D., 2015, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.09.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015APh....62..195K 62, 195

    2015 doi

  23. [35]

    R., et al., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14)

    Kloeckner H. R., et al., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14). p. 27 ( @eprint arXiv 1501.03822 ), @doi 10.22323/1.215.0027

    2015 arXiv

  24. [36]

    M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107f3544K 107, 063544

    Koksbang S. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107f3544K 107, 063544

    2023 doi

  25. [37]

    M., Heinesen A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.106d3501K 106, 043501

    Koksbang S. M., Heinesen A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.106d3501K 106, 043501

    2022 doi

  26. [38]

    M., Heinesen A., Macpherson H

    Koksbang S. M., Heinesen A., Macpherson H. J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.06242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240406242K p. arXiv:2404.06242

    2024 doi

  27. [39]

    Koley A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2023.43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASA...40...46K 40, e046

    2023 doi

  28. [40]

    Lane W., Smette A., Briggs F., Rao S., Turnshek D., Meylan G., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116...26L 116, 26

    1998 doi

  29. [41]

    Li D., et al., 2018, @doi [IEEE Microwave Magazine] 10.1109/MMM.2018.2802178 , 19, 112

    2018

  30. [42]

    V., 2003, @doi [Phys

    Linder E. V., 2003, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301 , 90, 091301

    2003 doi

  31. [43]

    Liske J., et al., 2008, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13090.x , 386, 1192

    2008

  32. [44]

    Liu Y., Zhang J.-F., Zhang X., 2020, @doi [European Physical Journal C] 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7863-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EPJC...80..304L 80, 304

    2020 doi

  33. [45]

    Loeb A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311375 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...499L.111L 499, L111

    1998 doi

  34. [46]

    Lu C.-Z., Jiao K., Zhang T., Zhang T.-J., Zhu M., 2022, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2022.101088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PDU....3701088L 37, 101088

    2022

  35. [47]

    arXiv:1310.3163

    Maiolino R., et al., 2013, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1310.3163M p. arXiv:1310.3163

    2013 arXiv

  36. [48]

    Marconi A., et al., 2021, @doi [The Messenger] 10.18727/0722-6691/5219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Msngr.182...27M 182, 27

    2021 doi

  37. [49]

    Marques C. M. J., Martins C. J. A. P., López B. G., 2023, Watching the Universe's acceleration era with the SKAO ( @eprint arXiv 2312.09702 )

    2023 arXiv

  38. [50]

    Martinelli M., Pandolfi S., Martins C. J. A. P., Vielzeuf P. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.123001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvD..86l3001M 86, 123001

    2012 doi

  39. [51]

    Martins C. J. A. P., Alves C. S., Esteves J., Lapel A., Pereira B. G., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv211012242M p. arXiv:2110.12242

    2021 arXiv

  40. [52]

    C., 1962, Ap

    McVittie G. C., 1962, Ap. J., 136, 334

    1962

  41. [53]

    Moresco M., et al., 2022, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-022-00040-z , 25

    2022 doi

  42. [54]

    M., Curran S., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14)

    Morganti R., Sadler E. M., Curran S., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14). p. 134 ( @eprint arXiv 1501.01091 ), @doi 10.22323/1.215.0134

    2015 arXiv

  43. [55]

    NAN R., et al., 2011, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/s0218271811019335 , 20, 989–1024

    2011 doi

  44. [56]

    B., et al., 2014, in Stepp L

    Newburgh L. B., et al., 2014, in Stepp L. M., Gilmozzi R., Hall H. J., eds, SPIE Proceedings. SPIE , @doi 10.1117/12.2056962 , https://doi.org/10.1117

    2014 doi

  45. [57]

    R., Heywood I., Levrier F., Rawlings S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1890O 703, 1890

    Obreschkow D., Kl \"o ckner H. R., Heywood I., Levrier F., Rawlings S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1890O 703, 1890

    2009 doi

  46. [58]

    D., S \'a ez-Chill \'o n G \'o mez D., Sharov G

    Odintsov S. D., S \'a ez-Chill \'o n G \'o mez D., Sharov G. S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241209409O p. arXiv:2412.09409

    2024 doi arXiv

  47. [59]

    S., White M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhRvL..83..670P 83, 670

    Perlmutter S., Turner M. S., White M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhRvL..83..670P 83, 670

    1999 doi

  48. [60]

    Quercellini C., Amendola L., Balbi A., Cabella P., Quartin M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.09.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhR...521...95Q 521, 95

    2012 doi

  49. [61]

    G., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.1009R 116, 1009

    Riess A. G., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300499 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.1009R 116, 1009

    1998 doi

  50. [62]

    Rocha B. A. R., Martins C. J. A. P., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2853R 518, 2853

    2023 doi

  51. [63]

    J., 136, 319

    Sandage A., 1962a, Ap. J., 136, 319

  52. [64]

    Sandage A., 1962b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/147385 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962ApJ...136..319S 136, 319

    doi

  53. [65]

    Square Kilometre Array Cosmology Science Working Group et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2019.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASA...37....7S 37, e007

    2020 doi

  54. [66]

    Staveley-Smith L., Oosterloo T., 2015, in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14). p. 167 ( @eprint arXiv 1506.04473 ), @doi 10.22323/1.215.0167

    2015 arXiv

  55. [67]

    M., 1988, in Blades J

    Wolfe A. M., 1988, in Blades J. C., Turnshek D. A., Norman C. A., eds, Proceedings of the QSO Absorption Line Meeting. pp 297--306

    1988

  56. [68]

    M., Turnshek D

    Wolfe A. M., Turnshek D. A., Smith H. E., Cohen R. D., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJS...61..249W 61, 249

    1986 doi

  57. [69]

    G., Silva M., Maartens R., Okouma P., Bassett B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2251Y 450, 2251

    Yahya S., Bull P., Santos M. G., Silva M., Maartens R., Okouma P., Bassett B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2251Y 450, 2251

    2015 doi

  58. [70]

    arXiv:2408.06626

    Yoon H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240806626Y p. arXiv:2408.06626

    2024 doi arXiv

  59. [71]

    Yu H.-R., Zhang T.-J., Pen U.-L., 2014, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/physrevlett.113.041303 , 113

    2014 doi

  60. [72]

    Zhao G.-B., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0216-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1..627Z 1, 627

    2017 doi

  61. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

  62. [74]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

  63. [75]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  64. [76]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  65. [77]

    OSSVm c #^O#5Ty J=< Y Kw Y˹؜S(:a|* 6᫿7t6w)on竿u-g1 .+(m #зwF'0M_ Ȕ]C̵2hN/ e2_ꎽ ?<_ ?럦 7㘤K( yG68QLR : VTkuɫ>XoQBl5do1HP ֛z G ͩa JU d 61.B :#[5t x Vt9 Ws !6 O* Mdgг QDb䖽

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.