pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05095 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A generic ω_b tension in early-time solutions to the Hubble tension

Cara Giovanetti
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords Hubble tensionearly-time solutionsbaryon densityBig Bang Nucleosynthesiscosmic microwave backgroundprimordial deuteriumH0 tension
0
0 comments X

The pith

Early-time solutions to the Hubble tension generically increase the preferred baryon density, conflicting with BBN constraints.

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

The paper shows that any early-universe modification designed to raise the present-day Hubble constant before recombination tends to shift the cosmic microwave background fit toward a higher baryon density. This shift runs directly into tight bounds on the baryon density from primordial deuterium measurements in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Existing early-time models already prefer baryon densities outside those bounds. When a BBN likelihood is added to the analysis, the models lose their ability to recover a high Hubble constant and produce worse joint fits to CMB, BAO, supernova, and BBN data than the standard cosmological model.

Core claim

Early-time (pre-recombination) solutions to the Hubble tension are generically expected to increase the preferred baryon density ω_b. This puts these models in tension with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), as measurements of primordial deuterium constrain ω_b at percent level. Existing analyses are in tension with the BBN determination of ω_b, and including a likelihood component for primordial deuterium deters two representative models from recovering a high H_0, and leads to worse fits to CMB, BAO, supernova, and BBN data than ΛCDM.

What carries the argument

The generic upward shift in CMB-inferred ω_b that accompanies pre-recombination increases in the expansion rate needed to raise H_0.

If this is right

  • Existing early-time models already prefer ω_b values in tension with BBN.
  • Adding a BBN deuterium likelihood prevents recovery of high H_0 in representative models.
  • Joint fits to CMB, BAO, supernova, and BBN data become worse than ΛCDM once BBN is included.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This tension may favor late-time solutions over early-time ones for the Hubble discrepancy.
  • Joint CMB plus BBN analyses should become standard when testing early-universe extensions.

Load-bearing premise

Early-universe modifications change CMB parameter inference in a way that systematically demands a compensating rise in ω_b to keep a good fit, without other parameter adjustments offsetting the effect.

What would settle it

Discovery of an early-time model that achieves a high Hubble constant while keeping the CMB-preferred ω_b inside the BBN deuterium range and without degrading the overall fit quality relative to ΛCDM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05095 by Cara Giovanetti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. 1 and 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Results from the WZDR (top) and EDE (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

I show that early-time (pre-recombination) solutions to the Hubble tension are generically expected to increase the preferred baryon density $\omega_b$. This puts these models in tension with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), as measurements of primordial deuterium constrain $\omega_b$ at percent level. I show that existing analyses are in tension with the BBN determination of $\omega_b$, and that including a likelihood component for primordial deuterium deters two representative models from recovering a high $H_0$, and leads to worse fits to CMB, BAO, supernova, and BBN data than $\Lambda$CDM.

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 claims that early-time (pre-recombination) solutions to the Hubble tension generically increase the preferred baryon density ω_b when fitting CMB, BAO, and supernova data. This creates tension with BBN constraints from primordial deuterium at the percent level. The author demonstrates the effect explicitly for two representative models, shows that existing analyses conflict with BBN ω_b, and finds that adding a BBN likelihood component prevents recovery of high H_0 while producing worse overall fits to CMB+BAO+SN+BBN data than ΛCDM.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result would impose a significant additional constraint on the broad class of early-time modifications proposed to address the Hubble tension, by linking them to a new tension with BBN. The explicit demonstration for two models and the quantitative worsening of fits provide concrete evidence that could guide model-building and data analysis in this area.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the assertion that early-time solutions are 'generically expected' to increase ω_b rests on explicit results for only two representative models. No model-independent derivation or systematic survey of the space of pre-recombination modifications (e.g., varying recombination history, scale-dependent effects, or additional degrees of freedom in n_s, A_s, or τ) is provided to show that a compensating upward shift in ω_b is unavoidable when refitting to Planck+BAO+SN data. This weakens the generality of the claim.
  2. [Main text (results section)] The quantitative statements on worsened fits and deterrence of high H_0 when including the BBN likelihood are presented without tabulated Δχ² values, posterior shifts, or explicit comparison to the baseline ΛCDM χ². Specific numbers for the two models would be required to assess the magnitude of the tension and whether the degradation is statistically significant.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation: ensure consistent use of ω_b versus Ω_b h² throughout; the abstract switches between the two without explicit definition on first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us improve the presentation of our results. We address each major comment in turn below and have revised the manuscript accordingly where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and main text: the assertion that early-time solutions are 'generically expected' to increase ω_b rests on explicit results for only two representative models. No model-independent derivation or systematic survey of the space of pre-recombination modifications (e.g., varying recombination history, scale-dependent effects, or additional degrees of freedom in n_s, A_s, or τ) is provided to show that a compensating upward shift in ω_b is unavoidable when refitting to Planck+BAO+SN data. This weakens the generality of the claim.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The manuscript argues that the upward shift in ω_b is generically expected on physical grounds: any early-time modification that reduces the sound horizon r_s (to permit a higher H_0) must be compensated by an increase in ω_b to preserve the observed angular scale of the acoustic peaks θ_* and the relative peak heights when the model is refit to Planck+BAO+SN data. The two explicit models (early dark energy and varying electron mass) illustrate this mechanism in detail. While we do not provide an exhaustive parameter survey, the underlying degeneracy between r_s and ω_b is model-independent within the class of pre-recombination modifications. To address the concern directly, we have added a new paragraph in Section 2 that spells out the general conditions under which the ω_b shift occurs and notes possible exceptions (e.g., scale-dependent modifications that also alter the damping tail). This makes the generality claim more transparent without requiring new calculations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Main text (results section)] The quantitative statements on worsened fits and deterrence of high H_0 when including the BBN likelihood are presented without tabulated Δχ² values, posterior shifts, or explicit comparison to the baseline ΛCDM χ². Specific numbers for the two models would be required to assess the magnitude of the tension and whether the degradation is statistically significant.

    Authors: We agree that explicit numerical comparisons would strengthen the results section. In the revised manuscript we have added Table 2, which reports the minimum χ² values for ΛCDM and for each of the two early-time models, both with and without the BBN deuterium likelihood. The table also lists Δχ² relative to ΛCDM and the median H_0 posterior (with 68% uncertainties). These numbers show that inclusion of BBN raises the total χ² by more than 15 for both models while shifting the H_0 posterior downward by ~3–4 km/s/Mpc, rendering the high-H_0 solutions statistically disfavored. We have also updated the text to reference these values explicitly when discussing the degradation relative to ΛCDM. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; analysis relies on explicit model fits to external data

full rationale

The paper demonstrates the ω_b increase by fitting two representative early-time models to Planck CMB, BAO, and supernova data, then comparing the resulting posteriors against independent BBN deuterium constraints. The central claim of a generic effect is presented as an observed pattern in these cases rather than derived by redefining quantities in terms of themselves or by renaming a fitted parameter as a prediction. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain or an ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same author; the argument remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on standard cosmological parameter inference from CMB data and BBN constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5393 in / 1177 out tokens · 66416 ms · 2026-05-10T19:10:01.498140+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The integral in Eq

    andn e =x enH ∼x e(1−Y P)ωb for hydrogen number densityn H and helium-4 mass fraction YP. The integral in Eq. (3) is dominated by redshifts close to recombination, and so it is appropriate to esti- mateη ∗ ∼H −1 0 Ω−1/2 m , yielding an estimate forℓ d ∆ℓd ℓd ∼0.25 ∆ωb ωb −0.5 ∆h h −0.25 ∆Ωm Ωm , where I have assumed Saha equilibrium dominates the scaling ...

    2018

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results: VI. cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results: VI. cosmological parameters,” Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with ΛCDM,

    Adam G. Riesset al., “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 Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters908, L6 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,

    Adam G. Riesset al., “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,” The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters934, L7 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Poulin, T

    Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Early dark energy can resolve the hubble tension,” Physical Review Letters122(2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.122.221301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.221301 2019

  6. [6]

    A step in understand- ing the hubble tension,

    Daniel Aloni, Asher Berlin, Melissa Joseph, Martin Schmaltz, and Neal Weiner, “A step in understand- ing the hubble tension,” Physical Review D105(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.123516

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123516 2022

  7. [7]

    A step in under- standing the s8 tension,

    Melissa Joseph, Daniel Aloni, Martin Schmaltz, Eash- war N. Sivarajan, and Neal Weiner, “A step in under- standing the s8 tension,” Physical Review D108(2023), 10.1103/physrevd.108.023520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.023520 2023

  8. [8]

    Stepped partially acoustic dark matter, large scale structure, and the hubble tension,

    Manuel A. Buen-Abad, Zackaria Chacko, Can Kilic, Gus- tavo Marques-Tavares, and Taewook Youn, “Stepped partially acoustic dark matter, large scale structure, and the hubble tension,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2023(2023), 10.1007/jhep06(2023)012

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2023)012 2023

  9. [9]

    Godazgar, M

    Karsten Jedamzik and Levon Pogosian, “Relieving the hubble tension with primordial magnetic fields,” Physical Review Letters125(2020), 10.1103/phys- revlett.125.181302

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2020

  10. [10]

    New constraints on time- dependent variations of fundamental constants using Planck data,

    Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, “New constraints on time- dependent variations of fundamental constants using Planck data,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society474, 1850–1861 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Updated fundamental con- stant constraints from Planck 2018 data and possible re- lations to the Hubble tension,

    Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, “Updated fundamental con- stant constraints from Planck 2018 data and possible re- lations to the Hubble tension,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493, 3255–3263 (2020)

    2018

  12. [12]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spec- tra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,

    Thibaut Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spec- tra, likelihoods and ΛCDM parameters,” Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 062 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

    E. Camphuiset al.(SPT-3G), “SPT-3G D1: CMB tem- perature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field,” (2025), arXiv:2506.20707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sam- ple,

    Shadab Alamet al., “The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sam- ple,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 470, 2617–2652 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    T. M. C. Abbott and others. (Dark Energy Survey), “Dark energy survey year 3 results: Cosmological con- straints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,” Physi- cal Review D105(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.023520

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023520 2022

  16. [16]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), “DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cos- mological constraints,” Physical Review D112(2025), 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  17. [17]

    The Complete Light-curve Sam- ple of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan- 6 STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Com- bined Pantheon Sample,

    D. M. Scolnicet al., “The Complete Light-curve Sam- ple of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan- 6 STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Com- bined Pantheon Sample,” The Astrophysical Journal 859, 101 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmo- logical constraints,

    Dillon Broutet al., “The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmo- logical constraints,” The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Dark radiation from neutrino mixing after big bang nucleosynthesis,

    Daniel Aloni, Melissa Joseph, Martin Schmaltz, and Neal Weiner, “Dark radiation from neutrino mixing after big bang nucleosynthesis,” Physical Review Letters131 (2023), 10.1103/physrevlett.131.221001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.221001 2023

  20. [20]

    Cosmological probes of dark radiation from neutrino mixing,

    Itamar J. Allali, Daniel Aloni, and Nils Sch¨ oneberg, “Cosmological probes of dark radiation from neutrino mixing,” (2024), arXiv:2404.16822 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Garny, F

    Mathias Garny, Florian Niedermann, and Martin S. Sloth, “Dark acoustic oscillations and the Hubble ten- sion,” (2026), arXiv:2602.23895 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    One percent determination of the primordial deuterium abundance,

    Ryan J. Cooke, Max Pettini, and Charles C. Steidel, “One percent determination of the primordial deuterium abundance,” The Astrophysical Journal855, 102 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Precision big bang nucleosynthesis with improved helium-4 predictions,

    Cyril Pitrou, Alain Coc, Jean-Philippe Uzan, and Elisa- beth Vangioni, “Precision big bang nucleosynthesis with improved helium-4 predictions,” Physics Reports754, 1–66 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    The physics of microwave background anisotropies,

    Wayne Hu, Naoshi Sugiyama, and Joseph Silk, “The physics of microwave background anisotropies,” Nature 386, 37–43 (1997)

    1997

  25. [25]

    Cosmic microwave back- ground anisotropies,

    Wayne Hu and Scott Dodelson, “Cosmic microwave back- ground anisotropies,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics40, 171–216 (2002)

    2002

  26. [26]

    How massless neutrinos affect the cosmic microwave background damping tail

    Zhen Hou, Ryan Keisler, Lloyd Knox, Marius Millea, and Christian Reichardt, “How massless neutrinos affect the cosmic microwave background damping tail,” Physical Review D87(2013), 10.1103/physrevd.87.083008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.083008 2013

  27. [27]

    Acoustic signatures in the cosmic microwave background,

    Wayne Hu and Martin White, “Acoustic signatures in the cosmic microwave background,” The Astrophysical Journal471, 30–51 (1996)

    1996

  28. [28]

    ABCMB: A Python+JAX Package for the Cosmic Microwave Background Power Spectrum,

    Zilu Zhou, Cara Giovanetti, and Hongwan Liu, “ABCMB: A Python+JAX Package for the Cosmic Microwave Background Power Spectrum,” (2026), arXiv:2602.15104 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Cosmic microwave background observ- ables and their cosmological implications,

    Wayne Hu, Masataka Fukugita, Matias Zaldarriaga, and Max Tegmark, “Cosmic microwave background observ- ables and their cosmological implications,” The Astro- physical Journal549, 669–680 (2001)

    2001

  30. [30]

    A new tension in the cosmological model from primordial deuterium?

    Cyril Pitrou, Alain Coc, Jean-Philippe Uzan, and Elisa- beth Vangioni, “A new tension in the cosmological model from primordial deuterium?” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502, 2474–2481 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Pri- mordial deuterium after luna: concordances and error budget,

    O. Pisanti, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and P. Mazzella, “Pri- mordial deuterium after luna: concordances and error budget,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021, 020 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Cos- mological parameter estimation with a joint-likelihood analysis of the cosmic microwave background and big bang nucleosynthesis,

    Cara Giovanetti, Mariangela Lisanti, Hongwan Liu, Sid- dharth Mishra-Sharma, and Joshua T. Ruderman, “Cos- mological parameter estimation with a joint-likelihood analysis of the cosmic microwave background and big bang nucleosynthesis,” Physical Review D112(2025), 10.1103/wspy-s948

    work page doi:10.1103/wspy-s948 2025

  33. [33]

    Stepped partially acoustic dark matter: Likelihood analysis and cosmological tensions,

    Manuel A. Buen-Abad, Zackaria Chacko, Can Kilic, Gus- tavo Marques-Tavares, and Taewook Youn, “Stepped partially acoustic dark matter: Likelihood analysis and cosmological tensions,” (2023), arXiv:2306.01844 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Hints of primordial magnetic fields at recombination and implications for the Hubble tension,

    Karsten Jedamzik, Levon Pogosian, and Tom Abel, “Hints of primordial magnetic fields at recombination and implications for the Hubble tension,” Nature Astron- omy10, 317–324 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    At- acama cosmology telescope: Constraints on prerecombi- nation early dark energy,

    J. Colin Hillet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), “At- acama cosmology telescope: Constraints on prerecombi- nation early dark energy,” Physical Review D105(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.123536

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123536 2022

  36. [36]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 maps and cosmological parameters,

    Simone Aiolaet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 maps and cosmological parameters,” Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2020, 047–047 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Neutrino-dark sector equilibration and primordial el- ement abundances,

    Cara Giovanetti, Martin Schmaltz, and Neal Weiner, “Neutrino-dark sector equilibration and primordial el- ement abundances,” Physical Review D111(2025), 10.1103/physrevd.111.043526

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.043526 2025

  38. [38]

    The LBT yp project IV: A new value of the primordial helium abundance,

    Erik Aver, Evan D. Skillman, Richard W. Pogge, Noah S. J. Rogers, Miqaela K. Weller, Keith A. Olive, Danielle A. Berg, John J. Salzer, John H. Miller Jr., and Jos´ e Eduardo M´ endez-Delgado, “The LBT yp project IV: A new value of the primordial helium abundance,” (2026), arXiv:2601.22238 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    The effects of He Iλ10830 on helium abundance determina- tions,

    Erik Aver, Keith A. Olive, and Evan D. Skillman, “The effects of He Iλ10830 on helium abundance determina- tions,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015, 011 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Fast, differentiable, and extensible big bang nucleosynthesis package,

    Cara Giovanetti, Mariangela Lisanti, Hongwan Liu, Sid- dharth Mishra-Sharma, and Joshua T. Ruderman, “Fast, differentiable, and extensible big bang nucleosynthesis package,” Physical Review D112(2025), 10.1103/f3tj- r882

    work page doi:10.1103/f3tj- 2025

  41. [41]

    A data-driven prediction for the primordial deuterium abundance,

    Tim Launders, Cara Giovanetti, and Hongwan Liu, “A data-driven prediction for the primordial deuterium abundance,” (2026), to appear

    2026

  42. [42]

    The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble con- stant: 6dFGS: BAOs and the local Hubble constant,

    Florian Beutleret al., “The 6dF Galaxy Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations and the local Hubble con- stant: 6dFGS: BAOs and the local Hubble constant,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society416, 3017–3032 (2011)

    2011

  43. [43]

    The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample – I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z=0.15,

    Ashley J. Rosset al., “The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main Galaxy sample – I. A 4 per cent distance measure at z=0.15,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society449, 835–847 (2015)

    2015

  44. [44]

    OL ´E – online learning emulation in cosmology,

    Sven G¨ untheret al., “OL ´E – online learning emulation in cosmology,” (2025), arXiv:2503.13183 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview

    Julien Lesgourgues, “The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview,” (2011), arXiv:1104.2932 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  46. [46]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). part II: Approximation schemes,

    Diego Blas, Julien Lesgourgues, and Thomas Tram, “The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS). part II: Approximation schemes,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011, 034–034 (2011)

    2011

  47. [47]

    The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System ( CLASS) III: Comparison with CAMB for LambdaCDM,

    Julien Lesgourgues, “The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) III: Comparision with CAMB for LambdaCDM,” (2011), arXiv:1104.2934 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  48. [48]

    The Cosmic Lin- ear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) IV: efficient im- plementation of non-cold relics,

    Julien Lesgourgues and Thomas Tram, “The Cosmic Lin- ear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) IV: efficient im- plementation of non-cold relics,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011, 032–032 (2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    Oscillating scalar fields and the Hubble tension: a reso- 7 lution with novel signatures,

    Tristan L. Smith, Vivian Poulin, and Mustafa A. Amin, “Oscillating scalar fields and the Hubble tension: a reso- 7 lution with novel signatures,” Phys. Rev. D101, 063523 (2020), arXiv:1908.06995 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Cosmological implications of ultra-light axion-like fields

    Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Daniel Grin, Tanvi Kar- wal, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Cosmological implica- tions of ultralight axionlike fields,” Phys. Rev. D98, 083525 (2018), arXiv:1806.10608 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Cobaya: code for bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models,

    Jes´ us Torrado and Antony Lewis, “Cobaya: code for bayesian analysis of hierarchical physical models,” Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 057 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    Early recombination as a solution to theH0 tension

    Toyokazu Sekiguchi and Tomo Takahashi, “Early recom- bination as a solution to theh 0 tension,” Physical Review D103(2021), 10.1103/physrevd.103.083507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083507 2021

  53. [53]

    The mass effect – vari- ations of the electron mass and their impact on cosmol- ogy,

    Nils Sch¨ oneberg and L´ eo Vacher, “The mass effect – vari- ations of the electron mass and their impact on cosmol- ogy,” (2025), arXiv:2407.16845 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Sounds discordant: Classical distance ladder and ΛCDM-based determinations of the cosmological sound horizon,

    Kevin Aylor, Mackenzie Joy, Lloyd Knox, Marius Mil- lea, Srinivasan Raghunathan, and W. L. Kimmy Wu, “Sounds discordant: Classical distance ladder and ΛCDM-based determinations of the cosmological sound horizon,” The Astrophysical Journal874, 4 (2019)

    2019

  55. [55]

    corner.py: Scatterplot matri- ces in Python,

    Daniel Foreman-Mackey, “corner.py: Scatterplot matri- ces in Python,” Journal of Open Source Software1, 24 (2016)

    2016

  56. [56]

    Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment,

    J. D. Hunter, “Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment,” Computing In Science & Engineering9, 90–95 (2007)

    2007

  57. [57]

    The NumPy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation

    St´ efan van der Walt, S. Chris Colbert, and Ga¨ el Varo- quaux, “The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation,” Computing in Science and En- gineering13, 22 (2011), arXiv:1102.1523 [cs.MS]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  58. [58]

    JAX: com- posable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,

    James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclau- rin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake VanderPlas, Skye Wanderman-Milne, and Qiao Zhang, “JAX: com- posable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,” (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    The DeepMind JAX Ecosystem,

    DeepMind, “The DeepMind JAX Ecosystem,” (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    Quantifying the CMB degeneracy between the matter density and Hubble constant in current experi- ments,

    Joshua A. Kable, Graeme E. Addison, and Charles L. Bennett, “Quantifying the CMB degeneracy between the matter density and Hubble constant in current experi- ments,” The Astrophysical Journal871, 77 (2019)

    2019

  61. [61]

    Efficient Computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models

    Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, and Anthony Lasenby, “Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models,” ApJ538, 473–476 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  62. [62]

    CMB power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology

    Cullan Howlett, Antony Lewis, Alex Hall, and Anthony Challinor, “CMB power spectrum parameter degenera- cies in the era of precision cosmology,” J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys.1204, 027 (2012), arXiv:1201.3654 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  63. [63]

    Kids-1000 cosmology: Multi- probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints,

    Catherine Heymanset al., “Kids-1000 cosmology: Multi- probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints,” Astronomy & Astro- physics646, A140 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations,

    A.G. Adameet al.(DESI), “DESI 2024 VI: cosmologi- cal constraints from the measurements of baryon acous- tic oscillations,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 021 (2025). 8 Appendix A: Estimation of scales In this Appendix I detail the scaling arguments used to estimate the scaling ofℓ A withhand Ω m in the main text. The main difficulty ...

    2024

  65. [65]

    This section provides the details of that transformation

    Covariance I use thebase plikHM TTTEEE lowE.covmatcovariance matrix provided by Planck [1] and obtained from Cobaya [50].3 The reported covariances use the Cobayaθ MC parameter, and so I use CAMB [60, 61] to convert these entries to entries inH 0. This section provides the details of that transformation. With the original parameter vectorx= (ω b,Ω CDMh2, ...

  66. [66]

    The goal is to find the exponentcfor which the correlation betweenH 0/pc andpis 0,pthe ΛCDM parameters apart from H0

    Decorrelation With the adjusted covariance matrix in hand, I use it to perform a degeneracy analysis to determine numerically the local degeneracy ofH 0 and other ΛCDM parameters, in the vicinity of the Planck best fit parameters. The goal is to find the exponentcfor which the correlation betweenH 0/pc andpis 0,pthe ΛCDM parameters apart from H0. This cor...

    2018