Forecasting graviton-mass constraints from the full covariance of PTA-astrometry ORF estimators

Jing-Hong Han; Zhi-Chao Zhao

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 59 references

Forecasting graviton-mass constraints from the full covariance of PTA-astrometry ORF estimators

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-08 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Full covariance between PTA and astrometry data improves graviton-mass limits from nanohertz gravitational waves.

desk verdict The paper gives closed-form covariances for joint PTA-astrometry ORF estimators and shows that future SKA/Theia-like data could tighten graviton-mass bounds, but the gains rest on fixed noise and spectrum assumptions with no variation tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.23384 v2 submitted 2026-04-25 gr-qc

Jing-Hong Han , Zhi-Chao Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc

keywords gravitonmasspulsartimingarrayastrometrystochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundoverlapreductionfunctioncovarianceformalismnanohertzfrequencies

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

The paper builds an analytic framework that calculates every correlation term among pulsar timing array and astrometry overlap reduction function estimators for a stochastic gravitational wave background. This full covariance lets the authors forecast how tightly combined observations can bound the graviton mass. With current-like sensitivities the joint limit stays comparable to existing PTA-only results. With next-generation sensitivities the astrometric measurements add meaningful information and lower the expected upper bound by nearly an order of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The full-covariance formalism for PTA-astrometry overlap reduction function estimators, which folds all auto- and cross-channel covariances into the likelihood for a graviton-mass-dependent SGWB spectrum.

What would settle it

Comparison of the forecasted joint limit of 0.48 × 10^{-24} eV/c² against the actual limit obtained once SKA and Theia/Gaia-NIR data are in hand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Deriving closed-form expressions for the complete covariance matrix of PTA-astrometry ORF estimators, including signal-signal, noise-noise, and signal-noise pieces, shows that joint analysis of timing and astrometric data from a nanohertz SGWB yields an expected 90 percent upper limit of m_g < 4.41 × 10^{-24} eV/c² for NANOGrav-Gaia sensitivities and m_g < 0.48 × 10^{-24} eV/c² for SKA-Theia sensitivities, with astrometry contributing substantially in the latter case.

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts rely on assumed noise levels, sensitivities, and lack of unmodeled systematics for future instruments together with a specific shape for the nanohertz SGWB spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Joint PTA-astrometry inference remains PTA-dominated today but becomes meaningfully stronger once sensitivities reach SKA and Theia levels.
Astrometric channels supply independent information that reduces the upper bound on graviton mass by almost a factor of ten in the future configuration.
The analytic covariance expressions match numerical simulations, confirming that the multichannel approach is statistically well-defined.
Multichannel PTA-astrometry analysis offers a practical route to tighter graviton-mass constraints without requiring entirely new detector types.

Reading between the lines

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

The same covariance machinery could be applied to other frequency-dependent modifications of the SGWB spectrum beyond simple massive-graviton dispersion.
Combining timing and astrometry might also help separate a cosmological SGWB from other nanohertz sources once both datasets mature.
The formalism is likely portable to any wave-like background whose overlap reduction function can be written in closed form.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors derive analytic expressions for the full covariance of overlap reduction function estimators that combine pulsar timing arrays with astrometric data, including every signal-signal, noise-noise, and signal-noise term for both auto- and cross-channels. They check those expressions against numerical simulations and then use them to forecast graviton-mass limits from a nanohertz stochastic background. For a setup modeled on current NANOGrav and Gaia sensitivities the joint 90% limit stays at 4.41 times 10^{-24} eV, still PTA-dominated and close to existing bounds. For a future-like SKA plus Theia/Gaia-NIR configuration the astrometric channels add real weight and bring the limit down to 0.48 times 10^{-24} eV. That quantitative step beyond pure PTA treatments is the concrete advance here. The derivation itself looks carefully executed and the simulation match gives it some grounding. The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags: the forecasts are computed with fixed instrument noise levels, timing residuals, astrometric precisions, and one assumed form for the SGWB spectrum. No alternative spectra, extra red-noise components, or marginalization over those inputs are shown, so the reported improvement is conditional on those choices holding up. If the actual noise or background deviates, the astrometric contribution could shrink. This is a methods paper for people who build joint PTA-astrometry pipelines or run forecasts for gravity tests at nanohertz frequencies. The central math and validation are honest enough that it deserves a serious referee, even if a review would likely ask for some sensitivity checks on the noise models.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a full-covariance formalism for pulsar timing array (PTA) and astrometry overlap reduction function (ORF) estimators, deriving analytic expressions that include signal-signal, noise-noise, and signal-noise contributions. These are validated against numerical simulations and then applied to forecast 90% upper limits on the graviton mass from a nanohertz stochastic gravitational wave background, yielding m_g < 4.41 × 10^{-24} eV/c² for a NANOGrav+Gaia-like configuration and m_g < 0.48 × 10^{-24} eV/c² for an SKA+Theia/Gaia-NIR-like configuration.

Significance. If the forecasts prove robust, the work supplies a technically sound multichannel framework that can tighten graviton-mass bounds beyond current PTA-only results once next-generation instruments reach the assumed sensitivities. The explicit derivation of the complete analytic covariance matrix and its numerical validation constitute a clear methodological contribution that supports more accurate joint inference than approximate treatments.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and forecast results] Abstract (future-like configuration paragraph) and associated forecast results: the reported improvement to m_g < 0.48 × 10^{-24} eV/c² is stated to arise from significant astrometric contribution, yet the calculation adopts fixed noise PSDs, astrometric precisions, and a specific SGWB spectral form without any parameter variation, marginalization, or systematic tests; because these inputs directly determine the numerical value of the joint limit, the central forecasting claim requires explicit robustness checks to be load-bearing.
[Covariance validation section] Validation of analytic covariances: while the manuscript states that the full covariance expressions (including cross terms) are validated against simulations, the validation details do not address whether the mass-dependent modifications to the ORF are accurately reproduced across the frequency band and instrument configurations used for the SKA/Theia forecasts.

minor comments (1)

The abstract and methods could more explicitly state the precise power-law index or broken-power-law parameters adopted for the nanohertz SGWB spectrum, as these enter the mass-dependent ORF and therefore affect the quoted limits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the two major points below regarding the robustness of the forecast results and the details of the covariance validation. We indicate planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and forecast results] Abstract (future-like configuration paragraph) and associated forecast results: the reported improvement to m_g < 0.48 × 10^{-24} eV/c² is stated to arise from significant astrometric contribution, yet the calculation adopts fixed noise PSDs, astrometric precisions, and a specific SGWB spectral form without any parameter variation, marginalization, or systematic tests; because these inputs directly determine the numerical value of the joint limit, the central forecasting claim requires explicit robustness checks to be load-bearing.

Authors: We agree that the specific numerical forecast values depend on the assumed parameters and that explicit robustness checks would make the claims more load-bearing. The configurations are chosen as representative benchmarks drawn from the literature (NANOGrav/Gaia for current-like and SKA/Theia for future-like), with the primary aim of the paper being to present and validate the full-covariance formalism rather than to perform exhaustive parameter scans or marginalizations. In the revised manuscript we will add a short paragraph in the forecast section (near the presentation of the 0.48 × 10^{-24} result) that qualitatively discusses the sensitivity of the joint limit to variations in noise PSDs and astrometric precision, noting how these would affect the relative weight of the astrometric channels. A full marginalization over these parameters lies outside the scope of the present work but is a natural direction for follow-up. revision: partial
Referee: [Covariance validation section] Validation of analytic covariances: while the manuscript states that the full covariance expressions (including cross terms) are validated against simulations, the validation details do not address whether the mass-dependent modifications to the ORF are accurately reproduced across the frequency band and instrument configurations used for the SKA/Theia forecasts.

Authors: The mass-dependent modifications enter the ORF through the altered dispersion relation for a massive graviton, which modifies the frequency-dependent phase and amplitude factors in the signal covariance. Our analytic expressions retain these terms explicitly. The Monte Carlo validation compares the full analytic covariance matrix (signal-signal, noise-noise, and cross terms) against simulations that employ the identical mass-dependent ORF model. The simulated frequency bands and pulsar/astrometric configurations span the nanohertz range used for both the current-like and SKA/Theia forecasts. Consequently the reported agreement already covers the mass-dependent behavior for the configurations in question. In the revision we will insert an explicit sentence in the validation section stating that the tested frequency range and instrument setups encompass those adopted for the SKA/Theia forecasts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in derivation or forecasts

full rationale

The paper derives analytic covariance expressions for auto- and cross-channel ORF estimators (signal-signal, noise-noise, signal-noise terms) from first principles and validates them numerically against simulations. These expressions are then applied to externally assumed instrument configurations (NANOGrav/Gaia and SKA/Theia-like sensitivities) and a standard nanohertz SGWB spectrum to produce forecasts for graviton-mass limits. No load-bearing step reduces the claimed results to quantities fitted from the same data, self-defined quantities, or a self-citation chain; the forecasts are direct applications of the independent formalism to specified external inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecasts rest on standard assumptions in nanohertz GW astronomy plus the specific projected sensitivities of current and future instruments; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)

instrument noise and sensitivity parameters
Specific noise levels for NANOGrav, Gaia, SKA, and Theia/Gaia-NIR are taken as given inputs rather than derived from the data.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The nanohertz SGWB is isotropic, stationary, and follows a power-law spectrum modified by a massive-graviton dispersion relation
This is the standard model used to compute the mass-dependent modifications to the ORF.
domain assumption The full covariance matrix of PTA and astrometry ORF estimators can be computed analytically from signal and noise contributions
Core modeling assumption that enables the joint analysis and forecasts.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forecasting graviton-mass constraints from the full covariance of PTA-astrometry ORF estimators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.23384

@misc{pith2026260423384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forecasting graviton-mass constraints from the full covariance of PTA-astrometry ORF estimators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.23384}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.23384}
}

abstract

We develop a full-covariance formalism for pulsar timing array(PTA) -- astrometry verlap reduction function (ORF) estimators and use it to forecast graviton-mass constraints from a nanohertz stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB). Analytic covariance expressions are derived for auto- and cross-channel ORF estimators, including signal-signal, noise-noise, and signal-noise contributions, and are validated against numerical simulations. For an observational configuration with sensitivities comparable to NANOGrav and Gaia, we obtain an expected joint 90\% upper limit of $m_g<4.41\times10^{-24}\,\mathrm{eV}/c^2$, which remains PTA-dominated and lies at the same order of magnitude as the existing NANOGrav 15-year PTA-only bound. For a future-like configuration with sensitivities comparable to the SKA and Theia/Gaia-NIR, the astrometric channels contribute significantly to the constraining power, and the joint limit improves to $m_g<0.48 \times 10^{-24} \, \mathrm{eV}/c^2$. These forecasts indicate that PTA -- astrometry multichannel inference provides a viable avenue for improving graviton-mass constraints under next-generation observational conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23384 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Full correlation-coefficient matrix of the joint correlation-curve estimators in the view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Comparison between empirical standard deviations and the analytic predictions view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Marginal posterior probability density distributions of the graviton mass view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[1]

Graviton Mass Bounds

C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025004 (2017), arXiv:1606.08462 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[2]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[3]

Fierz and W

M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A173, 211 (1939)

work page 1939
[4]

A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9805201

work page arXiv 1998
[5]

Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

work page Pith review arXiv 1999
[6]

Resummation of Massive Gravity

C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 231101 (2011), arXiv:1011.1232 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011
[7]

’t Hooft, Found

G. ’t Hooft, Found. Phys.38, 733 (2008), arXiv:0804.0328 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[8]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 59 references

[9]

Bernus, O

L. Bernus, O. Minazzoli, A. Fienga, M. Gastineau, J. Laskar, and P. Deram, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 161103 (2019), arXiv:1901.04307 [gr-qc]

2019
[10]

Desai, Phys

S. Desai, Phys. Lett. B778, 325 (2018), arXiv:1708.06502 [astro-ph.CO]

2018
[11]

C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D57, 2061 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9709011
[12]

Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]. 20

2021
[13]

K. Lee, F. A. Jenet, R. H. Price, N. Wex, and M. Kramer, Astrophys. J.722, 1589 (2010), arXiv:1008.2561 [astro-ph.HE]

2010
[14]

Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro- ph.HE]

2023
[15]

Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron

J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron. Astrophys.678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

2023
[16]

D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

2023
[17]

Xuet al., Res

H. Xuet al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

2023
[18]

R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D107, L101502 (2023), arXiv:2302.11796 [gr-qc]

2023
[19]

Wu, Z.-C

Y.-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D107, 042003 (2023), arXiv:2302.00229 [gr-qc]

2023
[20]

Wang and Z.-C

S. Wang and Z.-C. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D109, L061502 (2024), arXiv:2307.04680 [astro-ph.HE]

2024
[21]

Wu, Z.-C

Y.-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, Y.-C. Bi, and Q.-G. Huang, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 075002 (2024), arXiv:2310.07469 [astro-ph.CO]

2024
[22]

R. W. Hellings and G. S. Downs, Astrophys. J. Lett.265, L39 (1983)

1983
[23]

Allen and J

B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D108, 043026 (2023), arXiv:2208.07230 [gr-qc]

2023
[24]

Allen, Phys

B. Allen, Phys. Rev. D107, 043018 (2023), arXiv:2205.05637 [gr-qc]

2023
[25]

L. G. Book and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D83, 024024 (2011), arXiv:1009.4192 [astro- ph.CO]

2011
[26]

W. Qin, K. K. Boddy, M. Kamionkowski, and L. Dai, Phys. Rev. D99, 063002 (2019), arXiv:1810.02369 [astro-ph.CO]

2019
[27]

W. Qin, K. K. Boddy, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D103, 024045 (2021), arXiv:2007.11009 [gr-qc]

2021
[28]

R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D107, 044007 (2023), arXiv:2208.12538 [gr-qc]

2023
[29]

D. P. Mihaylov, C. J. Moore, J. Gair, A. Lasenby, and G. Gilmore, Phys. Rev. D101, 024038 (2020), arXiv:1911.10356 [gr-qc]

2020
[30]

C ¸ alı¸ skan, Y

M. C ¸ alı¸ skan, Y. Chen, L. Dai, N. Anil Kumar, I. Stomberg, and X. Xue, JCAP05, 030 (2024), arXiv:2312.03069 [gr-qc]

2024
[31]

D. P. Mihaylov, C. J. Moore, J. R. Gair, A. Lasenby, and G. Gilmore, Phys. Rev. D97, 124058 (2018), arXiv:1804.00660 [gr-qc]. 21

2018
[32]

C. J. Moore, D. P. Mihaylov, A. Lasenby, and G. Gilmore, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 261102 (2017), arXiv:1707.06239 [astro-ph.IM]

2017
[33]

S. A. Klioner, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 045005 (2018), arXiv:1710.11474 [astro-ph.HE]

2018
[34]

Prustiet al.(Gaia), Astron

T. Prustiet al.(Gaia), Astron. Astrophys.595, A1 (2016), arXiv:1609.04153 [astro-ph.IM]

2016
[35]

N. M. J. Cruz, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, Phys. Rev. D112, 083558 (2025), arXiv:2412.14010 [astro-ph.CO]

2025
[36]

R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, JCAP11, 046 (2022), arXiv:2209.14834 [gr-qc]

2022
[37]

Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

G. Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

2015
[38]

Hobbset al., Exper

D. Hobbset al., Exper. Astron.51, 783 (2021), arXiv:1907.12535 [astro-ph.IM]

2021
[39]

Boehmet al.(Theia), (2017), arXiv:1707.01348 [astro-ph.IM]

C. Boehmet al.(Theia), (2017), arXiv:1707.01348 [astro-ph.IM]

2017
[40]

Maggiore, Phys

M. Maggiore, Phys. Rept.331, 283 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9909001

2000
[41]

Allen, inLes Houches School of Physics: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation (1996) pp

B. Allen, inLes Houches School of Physics: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Radiation (1996) pp. 373–417, arXiv:gr-qc/9604033

1996
[42]

S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J.234, 1100 (1979)

1979
[43]

M. V. Sazhin, Sov. Astron.22, 36 (1978)

1978
[44]

V. B. Braginsky, N. S. Kardashev, I. D. Novikov, and A. G. Polnarev, Nuovo Cim. B105, 1141 (1990)

1990
[45]

Allen and J

B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D59, 102001 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117

1999
[46]

E. S. Phinney, (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0108028

2001
[47]

Christensen, Phys

N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D46, 5250 (1992)

1992
[48]

E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D48, 2389 (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9305029

1993
[49]

Vaglio, M

M. Vaglio, M. Falxa, G. Mentasti, A. I. Renzini, A. Kuntz, E. Barausse, C. Contaldi, and A. Sesana, (2025), arXiv:2507.18593 [gr-qc]

2025
[50]

Cowan, K

G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

2011
[51]

K. M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelman, Astrophys. J.622, 759 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0409513

2005
[52]

Siemens, J

X. Siemens, J. Ellis, F. Jenet, and J. D. Romano, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 224015 (2013), arXiv:1305.3196 [astro-ph.IM]

2013
[53]

C. J. Moore, S. R. Taylor, and J. R. Gair, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 055004 (2015), arXiv:1406.5199 [astro-ph.IM]. 22

2015
[54]

Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L10 (2023), arXiv:2306.16218 [astro- ph.HE]

2023
[55]

Carron, Astron

J. Carron, Astron. Astrophys.551, A88 (2013), arXiv:1204.4724 [astro-ph.CO]

2013
[56]

N. Pol, S. R. Taylor, and J. D. Romano, Astrophys. J.940, 173 (2022), arXiv:2206.09936 [astro-ph.HE]

2022
[57]

J. Qiao, Z. Li, T. Zhu, R. Ji, G. Li, and W. Zhao, Front. Astron. Space Sci.9, 1109086 (2023), arXiv:2211.16825 [gr-qc]

2023
[58]

C. Gong, T. Zhu, R. Niu, Q. Wu, J.-L. Cui, X. Zhang, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D105, 044034 (2022), arXiv:2112.06446 [gr-qc]

2022
[59]

Liang, M.-X

Q. Liang, M.-X. Lin, M. Trodden, and S. S. C. Wong, Phys. Rev. D109, 083028 (2024), arXiv:2309.16666 [astro-ph.CO]. 23

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed May 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Graviton Mass Bounds

C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025004 (2017), arXiv:1606.08462 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

[2] [2]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[3] [3]

Fierz and W

M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A173, 211 (1939)

work page 1939

[4] [4]

A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9805201

work page arXiv 1998

[5] [5]

Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

work page Pith review arXiv 1999

[6] [6]

Resummation of Massive Gravity

C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 231101 (2011), arXiv:1011.1232 [hep-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

[7] [7]

’t Hooft, Found

G. ’t Hooft, Found. Phys.38, 733 (2008), arXiv:0804.0328 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

[8] [8]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

work page 2024