pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13718 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: unknown

Optical depth to reionization in a Universe with multiple inhomogeneous domains

Shashank Shekhar Pandey , Ruchika , Subhadeep Mukherjee , A. S. Majumdar
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords backreactionreionizationoptical depthinhomogeneous cosmologyBuchert averagingsupernova dataHubble tension
0
0 comments X

The pith

A multi-domain backreaction model fitted to supernova data yields a reionization optical depth closer to observations than the standard cosmological model.

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

The paper studies the optical depth to reionization in a cosmological setting that includes backreaction from matter inhomogeneities, using the Buchert averaging formalism to build a spacetime model of multiple inhomogeneous domains. It first explores how the model's parameters affect the optical depth calculation, then performs an MCMC fit to the PantheonPlus+SH0ES Type Ia supernova sample to determine best-fit values. These parameters are used to compute τ_reion = 0.0581^{+0.0105}_{-0.0096} at 68% confidence limits. A sympathetic reader would care because this value aligns more closely with observational estimates than the standard model predicts, while also producing a modest reduction in the Hubble tension without requiring exotic physics.

Core claim

In a backreaction model consisting of multiple inhomogeneous domains characterized by a set of parameters, fitting those parameters to PantheonPlus+SH0ES supernova data produces τ_reion = 0.0581^{+0.0105}_{-0.0096} (68% confidence), which matches observational estimates more closely than the standard cosmological model while modestly reducing the Hubble tension.

What carries the argument

The Buchert averaging formalism applied to a spacetime model of multiple inhomogeneous domains, with parameters constrained by supernova luminosity distances to evaluate the optical depth to reionization.

If this is right

  • The calculated optical depth to reionization aligns more closely with current observations than the standard model prediction.
  • The model produces a modest reduction in the Hubble tension.
  • These outcomes are achieved without invoking exotic or non-standard physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inhomogeneity effects captured through averaging may simultaneously address discrepancies in both early-universe and late-universe observables.
  • More precise future CMB polarization measurements could test the specific ionization history implied by the fitted domain parameters.
  • The same multi-domain fitting approach could be applied to other observables sensitive to averaging, such as baryon acoustic oscillation scales.

Load-bearing premise

The backreaction parameters fitted to supernova luminosity distances alone correctly determine the reionization optical depth without additional free functions or adjustments to the ionization history.

What would settle it

A future precise measurement of τ_reion from CMB polarization data that lies well outside the 0.048-0.069 range, while the supernova constraints on the model parameters stay unchanged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13718 by A. S. Majumdar, Ruchika, Shashank Shekhar Pandey, Subhadeep Mukherjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Subplot (a) is the plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Color coded representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Color coded representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Corner plot showing the MCMC result for the backreaction model carried out using the observational results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contour plots showing the correlation between the backreaction model parameters and derived parameter - [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The upper panel displays the marginalized posterior distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. This figure shows the distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the optical depth to reionization in a cosmological setting that includes backreaction from matter inhomogeneities, using the Buchert averaging formalism. We construct a spacetime model consisting of multiple inhomogeneous domains, hereafter referred to as the backreaction model, characterized by a set of parameters. We first examine how these parameters influence the computation of the optical depth to reionization, $\tau_{reion}$. Next, we carry out a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis based on the PantheonPlus+SH0ES Type Ia supernova sample to infer the best-fit values of the model parameters, and then use these to evaluate $\tau_{reion}$. We obtain $\tau_{reion} = 0.0581^{+0.0105}_{-0.0096}$ (68$\%$ confidence limits). This result indicates that, when PantheonPlus+SH0ES data are used to constrain the model parameters, our backreaction model yields a value of $\tau_{reion}$ that aligns more closely with observational estimates than the value predicted by the standard cosmological model. We further demonstrate that the backreaction model leads to a modest reduction of the Hubble tension, while avoiding the need for exotic or non-standard physics.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a multi-domain backreaction model using the Buchert averaging formalism, fits its parameters via MCMC to the PantheonPlus+SH0ES Type Ia supernova sample, and reports that the resulting effective expansion history yields τ_reion = 0.0581^{+0.0105}_{-0.0096} (68% CL), closer to observational estimates than the standard ΛCDM value while also modestly reducing the Hubble tension.

Significance. If the low-redshift domain parameters remain valid when extrapolated to reionization epochs and the ionization history requires no additional corrections, the result would offer a purely gravitational explanation for the observed optical depth without exotic physics. The numerical MCMC analysis on real supernova data and the explicit parameter-to-τ_reion mapping are strengths that make the claim falsifiable in principle.

major comments (2)
  1. [MCMC analysis and τ_reion computation] The central claim requires that the best-fit domain parameters (obtained from luminosity distances at z ≲ 2.5) produce a modified H(z) that can be inserted into the standard optical-depth integral at z ~ 10–20. No evolution check or consistency test of the multi-domain construction is provided when the averaged scale factor is integrated backward to reionization redshifts (see the MCMC analysis and τ_reion evaluation steps described after the parameter-influence examination).
  2. [optical depth to reionization calculation] The optical depth is computed with an unchanged ionization history x_e(z) while only H(z) is modified by the backreaction parameters. The manuscript does not demonstrate that inhomogeneity-induced corrections to n_e or x_e remain negligible at reionization epochs, which is load-bearing for interpreting the reported τ_reion as a direct consequence of the fitted model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and methods] The abstract states that the model parameters are first examined for their influence on τ_reion before the MCMC step; a brief equation or flowchart showing the explicit mapping from domain parameters to the integrand of τ_reion would improve clarity.
  2. [results] The reported confidence limits on τ_reion are given to four decimal places; it would be useful to state whether these uncertainties propagate only from the supernova fit or also include any modeling assumptions about the ionization history.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of the extrapolation and assumptions in our analysis, which we address point by point below. We propose targeted revisions to strengthen the presentation and justification of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [MCMC analysis and τ_reion computation] The central claim requires that the best-fit domain parameters (obtained from luminosity distances at z ≲ 2.5) produce a modified H(z) that can be inserted into the standard optical-depth integral at z ~ 10–20. No evolution check or consistency test of the multi-domain construction is provided when the averaged scale factor is integrated backward to reionization redshifts (see the MCMC analysis and τ_reion evaluation steps described after the parameter-influence examination).

    Authors: The Buchert-averaged multi-domain model yields effective equations for the domain scale factor a_D that are intended to describe the averaged cosmology across epochs. The parameters are constrained at low redshift but govern the evolution at all z via the averaged Friedmann-like equations. We acknowledge that an explicit consistency check of the backward integration was not included in the original manuscript. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that numerically integrates the averaged scale factor from z = 0 to z ≈ 20 using the MCMC best-fit parameters, confirming that the effective H(z) remains smooth, positive, and free of unphysical features such as divergences or violations of the effective energy conditions. This will directly support the insertion of the modified H(z) into the optical-depth integral. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [optical depth to reionization calculation] The optical depth is computed with an unchanged ionization history x_e(z) while only H(z) is modified by the backreaction parameters. The manuscript does not demonstrate that inhomogeneity-induced corrections to n_e or x_e remain negligible at reionization epochs, which is load-bearing for interpreting the reported τ_reion as a direct consequence of the fitted model.

    Authors: Our calculation modifies only the expansion history H(z) while retaining the standard x_e(z) parametrization used in Planck analyses. This follows from the effective nature of the backreaction model, which primarily alters global averaged dynamics rather than local microphysical ionization processes. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of this assumption and an order-of-magnitude estimate of possible corrections. In the revision, we will add a paragraph discussing that the constrained backreaction parameters induce only percent-level shifts in the effective matter density; under the assumption of spatially averaged ionization, this implies sub-percent corrections to n_e at reionization redshifts. We will also note the limitation that a full coupling to radiative-transfer simulations lies outside the present scope, while emphasizing that the reported τ_reion difference arises principally from the modified H(z). revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

SN-fitted backreaction parameters determine the reported τ_reion value

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "we carry out a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis based on the PantheonPlus+SH0ES Type Ia supernova sample to infer the best-fit values of the model parameters, and then use these to evaluate τ_reion. We obtain τ_reion = 0.0581^{+0.0105}_{-0.0096} (68% confidence limits). This result indicates that, when PantheonPlus+SH0ES data are used to constrain the model parameters, our backreaction model yields a value of τ_reion that aligns more closely with observational estimates than the value predicted by the standard cosmological model."

    The model parameters are fitted solely to supernova distance data that fix the effective expansion history; τ_reion is then computed directly from that same fitted history via the unchanged ionization integral. The reported numerical value and its claimed improvement are therefore outputs of the SN fit rather than an independent first-principles result.

full rationale

The paper constrains its multi-domain model exclusively via MCMC on low-z PantheonPlus+SH0ES luminosity distances, then inserts the resulting H(z) into the standard optical-depth integral. This produces a τ_reion value that is statistically determined by the SN fit rather than derived independently; the claim of closer alignment with observations therefore inherits the fit's assumptions without separate high-z validation. No self-definitional equations or load-bearing self-citations appear, keeping the circularity moderate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the Buchert averaging scheme applied to reionization, the assumption that domain parameters fitted to supernovae fully determine the ionization history, and the absence of additional reionization-specific parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • domain parameters
    Set of parameters characterizing the multiple inhomogeneous domains; their best-fit values are obtained from the MCMC on PantheonPlus+SH0ES data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Buchert averaging formalism correctly captures backreaction effects on the optical depth integral
    Invoked to justify the multi-domain spacetime model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5526 in / 1212 out tokens · 22297 ms · 2026-05-10T12:38:45.989672+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

105 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    lensing”) and external data “ext

    ΛCDM model: The ΛCDM model is the current standard framework of cosmology. It assumes a homogeneous and isotropic Universe described by the FLRW metric, with dynamics governed by General Relativity. The energy budget consists of radiation, baryonic matter, cold dark matter, and a cosmological constant Λ that drives late-time acceleration. The Hubble param...

    2018

  2. [2]

    M is the fiducial absolute magnitude of an SN Ia.δ µ−bias is the bias correction derived from simulations needed to account for selection effects and other issues in discovery

    in this analysis. M is the fiducial absolute magnitude of an SN Ia.δ µ−bias is the bias correction derived from simulations needed to account for selection effects and other issues in discovery. In this analysis, we have also included M(Eq. 41), the fiducial magnitude of SN Ia, as one of the parameters. The parametersMandH 0 are degenerate when analyzing ...

  3. [3]

    real-world

    for the Planck PR3 dataset and the ΛCDM cosmological model, whereH0 is calculated using the TT, TE,EE+lowE method. (ii) is reported in [14] for ΛCDM model using PantheonPlus+SH0ES dataset. (iii) is calculated here in this study for our backreaction model and PantheonPlus+SH0ES dataset. These quantities were then plotted in Fig. 8. In Fig. 8, the tension b...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2020

  4. [4]

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y.,et al., A&A641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr,et al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 113 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Suzukiet al., The Astrophysical Journal746, 85 (2012)

    N. Suzukiet al., The Astrophysical Journal746, 85 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astronomy Reviews95, 101659 (2022). 19

    2022

  8. [8]

    Del Popolo and M

    A. Del Popolo and M. Le Delliou, Galaxies5, 10.3390/galaxies5010017 (2017)

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies5010017 2017

  9. [9]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. F. Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim,et al., Journal of High Energy Astrophysics34, 49 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Di Valentino, Universe8(2022) no.8, 399 doi:10.3390/universe8080399

    E. Di Valentino, Universe8, 10.3390/universe8080399 (2022)

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8080399 2022

  11. [11]

    Di Valentino, J

    E. Di Valentino, J. L. Said, A. Riess,et al., Physics of the Dark Universe49, 101965 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astronomy Reviews95, 101659 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 153001 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Hu and F.-Y

    J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, Universe9, 10.3390/universe9020094 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9020094 2023

  15. [15]

    J. L. Cervantes-Cota, S. Galindo-Uribarri, and G. F. Smoot, Universe9, 10.3390/universe9120501 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9120501 2023

  16. [16]

    Verde, N

    L. Verde, N. Sch¨ oneberg, and H. Gil-Mar´ ın, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics62, 287 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic,et al., The Astrophysical Journal938, 110 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters934, L7 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    F. S. Labini, N. L. Vasilyev, L. Pietronero, and Y. V. Baryshev, Europhysics Letters86, 49001 (2009)

    2009

  20. [20]

    Buchert, A

    T. Buchert, A. A. Coley, H. Kleinert,et al., International Journal of Modern Physics D25, 1630007 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021827181630007X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021827181630007x 2016

  21. [21]

    Sylos Labini and L

    F. Sylos Labini and L. Pietronero, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2010, P11029 (2010)

    2010

  22. [22]

    F. S. Labini, Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 164003 (2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    A. O. Verevkin, Y. L. Bukhmastova, and Y. V. Baryshev, Astronomy Reports55, 324 (2011)

    2011

  24. [24]

    Kumar Aluri, P

    P. Kumar Aluri, P. Cea, P. Chingangbam,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 094001 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Wiegand, T

    A. Wiegand, T. Buchert, and M. Ostermann, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society443, 241 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    A. M. Lopez, R. G. Clowes, and G. M. Williger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516, 1557 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    A. M. Lopez and R. G. Clowes, Gigaparsec structures are nowhere to be seen inλcdm: an enhanced analysis of lss in flamingo-10k simulations (2025), arXiv:2504.14940 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Sawala, M

    T. Sawala, M. Teeriaho, C. S. Frenk,et al., The emperor’s new arc: gigaparsec patterns abound in aλcdm universe (2025), arXiv:2502.03515 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Sawala and M

    T. Sawala and M. Teeriaho, The giant arc – filament of figment? (2025), arXiv:2505.11072 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Wiegand and T

    A. Wiegand and T. Buchert, Phys. Rev. D82, 023523 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2006(11), 003

    S. R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2006(11), 003

  32. [32]

    G. F. R. Ellis, Relativistic cosmology: Its nature, aims and problems, inGeneral Relativity and Gravitation: Invited Papers and Discussion Reports of the 10th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Padua, July 3–8, 1983, edited by B. Bertotti, F. de Felice, and A. Pascolini (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1984) pp. 215–288

    1983

  33. [33]

    Futamase, Phys

    T. Futamase, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 2175 (1988)

    1988

  34. [34]

    R. M. Zalaletdinov, General Relativity and Gravitation24, 1015 (1992)

    1992

  35. [35]

    R. M. Zalaletdinov, General Relativity and Gravitation25, 673 (1993)

    1993

  36. [36]

    Gasperini, G

    M. Gasperini, G. Marozzi, F. Nugier, and G. Veneziano, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011(07), 008

  37. [37]

    Buchert, General Relativity and Gravitation32, 105 (2000)

    T. Buchert, General Relativity and Gravitation32, 105 (2000)

    2000

  38. [38]

    Buchert, General Relativity and Gravitation33, 1381 (2001)

    T. Buchert, General Relativity and Gravitation33, 1381 (2001)

    2001

  39. [39]

    A. A. Coley, N. Pelavas, and R. M. Zalaletdinov, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 151102 (2005)

    2005

  40. [40]

    Korzy´ nski, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 105015 (2010)

    M. Korzy´ nski, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 105015 (2010)

    2010

  41. [41]

    Clifton, K

    T. Clifton, K. Rosquist, and R. Tavakol, Phys. Rev. D86, 043506 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Skarke, Phys

    H. Skarke, Phys. Rev. D89, 043506 (2014)

    2014

  43. [43]

    Buchert, M

    T. Buchert, M. Carfora, G. F. R. Ellis,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 215021 (2015)

    2015

  44. [44]

    Buchert, A

    T. Buchert, A. A. Coley, H. Kleinert,et al., International Journal of Modern Physics D25, 1630007 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2004(02), 003

    S. R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2004(02), 003

  46. [46]

    D. L. Wiltshire, Dark energy without dark energy, inDark Matter in Astroparticle and Particle Physics, pp. 565–596

  47. [47]

    E. W. Kolb, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, New Journal of Physics8, 322 (2006)

    2006

  48. [48]

    Koksbang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(10), 036

    S. Koksbang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019(10), 036

  49. [49]

    S. M. Koksbang, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters498, L135 (2020)

    2020

  50. [50]

    S. M. Koksbang, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 231101 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2008(04), 026

    S. R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2008(04), 026

  52. [52]

    Bose and A

    N. Bose and A. S. Majumdar, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters418, L45 (2011)

    2011

  53. [53]

    Bose and A

    N. Bose and A. S. Majumdar, General Relativity and Gravitation45, 1971 (2013)

    1971

  54. [54]

    Ali and A

    A. Ali and A. Majumdar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017(01), 054

  55. [55]

    S. S. Pandey, A. Sarkar, A. Ali, and A. Majumdar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022(06), 021

  56. [56]

    S. S. Pandey, A. Sarkar, A. Ali, and A. S. Majumdar, The European Physical Journal C83, 435 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    Koksbang and S

    S. Koksbang and S. Hannestad, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016(01), 009

  58. [58]

    S. M. Koksbang, Phys. Rev. D106, 063514 (2022)

    2022

  59. [60]

    S. M. Koksbang, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 201003 (2023)

    2023

  60. [61]

    S. M. Koksbang, Phys. Rev. D107, 103522 (2023)

    2023

  61. [62]

    S. S. Pandey, A. Halder, and A. S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D110, 043531 (2024)

    2024

  62. [63]

    Mukherjee, S

    S. Mukherjee, S. S. Pandey, and A. S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D112, 063520 (2025)

    2025

  63. [64]

    Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W. L. Matthewson,et al., Extended dark energy analysis using desi dr2 bao measurements (2025), arXiv:2503.14743 [astro-ph.CO]. 20

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  64. [65]

    Son, Y.-W

    J. Son, Y.-W. Lee, C. Chung,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society544, 975 (2025), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/544/1/975/65175128/staf1685.pdf

    2025

  65. [66]

    Halder, S

    A. Halder, S. S. Pandey, and A. Majumdar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(08), 064

  66. [67]

    Giani, R

    L. Giani, R. von Marttens, and R. Camilleri, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 071004 (2025)

    2025

  67. [68]

    R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2009(02), 011

    S. R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2009(02), 011

  68. [69]

    R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010(03), 018

    S. R¨ as¨ anen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010(03), 018

  69. [70]

    S. M. Koksbang, Classical and Quantum Gravity36, 185004 (2019)

    2019

  70. [71]

    Koksbang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(11), 061

    S. Koksbang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(11), 061

  71. [72]

    Kasai and T

    M. Kasai and T. Futamase, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2019, 073E01 (2019), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article-pdf/2019/7/073E01/28914425/ptz066.pdf

    2019

  72. [73]

    H. J. Macpherson, P. D. Lasky, and D. J. Price, The Astrophysical Journal Letters865, L4 (2018)

    2018

  73. [74]

    Miura and T

    T. Miura and T. Tanaka, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024(05), 126

  74. [75]

    San Mart´ ın and C

    M. San Mart´ ın and C. Rubio, Annals of Physics458, 169444 (2023)

    2023

  75. [76]

    Bolejko, Phys

    K. Bolejko, Phys. Rev. D97, 103529 (2018)

    2018

  76. [77]

    Heinesen and T

    A. Heinesen and T. Buchert, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 164001 (2020)

    2020

  77. [78]

    Ben-Dayan, R

    I. Ben-Dayan, R. Durrer, G. Marozzi, and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 221301 (2014)

    2014

  78. [79]

    L. M. Griffiths, D. Barbosa, and A. R. Liddle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society308, 854 (1999), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/308/3/854/2962118/308-3-854.pdf

    1999

  79. [80]

    Wolz, Kevin, Krachmalnicoff, Nicoletta, and Pagano, Luca, A&A676, A30 (2023)

    2023

  80. [81]

    Pagano, L., Delouis, J.-M., Mottet, S.,et al., A&A635, A99 (2020)

    2020

Showing first 80 references.