pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11437 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Revisiting GW170817 at milliarcsecond scale: high-precision constraints on jet geometry and H₀

Kelly Gourdji , Adam T. Deller , Chris Flynn , Taya Govreen-Segal , Cullan Howlett , Kunal P. Mooley , Ehud Nakar
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 01:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO
keywords GW170817Hubble constantstandard sirensgravitational wave afterglowVLBIjet geometryluminosity distanceneutron star merger
0
0 comments X

The pith

New VLBI fitting of GW170817's afterglow gives a viewing angle of 17-20 degrees and H0 of 65.5 km/s/Mpc.

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

The paper reprocesses high-resolution radio observations of the neutron-star merger GW170817 to improve the constraint on how directly we see the jet. Earlier work left the jet opening angle and viewing angle entangled, which limited the accuracy of the luminosity distance and therefore the Hubble constant derived from the event. By introducing hydrodynamical afterglow models that allow any jet geometry and by fitting the raw VLBI visibility data directly, the authors separate those angles more cleanly. When they also solve for distance and marginalize over host-galaxy motion, the resulting H0 sits closer to the cosmic-microwave-background value than to the local distance-ladder value. This matters because any single standard-siren measurement that narrows the present tension between early- and late-universe H0 estimates helps test whether the discrepancy is real or an artifact of one technique.

Core claim

Using a Bayesian visibility-plane model-fitting framework together with hydrodynamical afterglow models that span a continuum of jet geometries, the analysis measures the viewing angle of GW170817 as 18.3-20.3 degrees when cosmology is fixed, and 16.8-19.2 degrees when luminosity distance and H0 are fitted simultaneously while marginalizing over an ensemble of peculiar-velocity corrections. The joint fit yields DL = 44.0 ± 1.6 Mpc and H0 = 65.5 ± 4.4 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, with the H0 posterior peaking within 0.5 sigma of the Planck value but 1.7 sigma from the SH0ES value.

What carries the argument

Bayesian visibility-plane model-fitting framework applied to VLBI data and hydrodynamical afterglow models that allow a continuous range of jet opening angles.

If this is right

  • The covariance between viewing angle and luminosity distance is reduced, tightening the standard-siren distance measurement.
  • The derived H0 posterior favors the early-universe Planck value over the late-universe SH0ES value at 1.7 sigma.
  • The same visibility-plane fitting approach can be applied to any future neutron-star merger with both gravitational-wave and radio afterglow data.
  • Marginalization over multiple peculiar-velocity realizations prevents over-precision from an incomplete treatment of host-galaxy motion.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the hydrodynamical models systematically under- or over-predict the radio flux at late times, the inferred viewing angle would shift and pull H0 with it.
  • A sample of ten similar events analyzed this way could produce an H0 uncertainty below 2 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} without relying on the cosmic distance ladder.
  • The method supplies a cross-check on whether the current Hubble tension arises from unmodeled systematics in either the early- or late-universe probes.

Load-bearing premise

The hydrodynamical afterglow models accurately describe the jet's emission physics and structure, and the ensemble of peculiar-velocity corrections captures all relevant uncertainties in the host galaxy's motion.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the jet viewing angle from future VLBI imaging or from the gravitational-wave waveform alone that falls outside the 16.8-20.3 degree range, or a new standard-siren H0 from another well-observed merger that lies more than 2 sigma from 65.5 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11437 by Adam T. Deller, Chris Flynn, Cullan Howlett, Ehud Nakar, Kelly Gourdji, Kunal P. Mooley, Taya Govreen-Segal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Corner plots of the θv − θcp (in degrees) and θv θcp posteriors resulting from fits that include (panels A to D): A) the HSA and HST data (days 0, 75, 230), B) same but with θv θcp priors informed by the afterglow light-curve, C) all astrometric data (days 0, 75, 207, 230), D) same but with θv θcp priors informed by the afterglow light-curve. The corresponding viewing angle (θv) posterior samples, recovere… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Astrometry plots showing the model-scaling fit results, with uninformative priors on jet parameters in the top panel, and priors informed by light curve information in the bottom panel. Two different fits are shown in each: day-207 data omitted (black) and included (red). The closed circles are the flux centroids of a representative afterglow model resulting from the fit, for each epoch, and are anchored t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Summary of 68% credible intervals for the jet viewing angle from our various fits. The top panel excludes cosmology and GW information from the fits and the luminosity distance is fixed to 40.7 Mpc. The six cosmology-free fits shown correspond (in descending order) to including: all 4 astrometric datasets plus light-curve informed priors (our most informed and ‘best’ fit of the 6, emphasized in red), all 4… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 68% credible interval of our most informed measurement of H0 (65.5 ± 4.4 km s−1Mpc−1 ) compared to those from a selection of relevant previous works using GW170817, as discussed in Section 4.3. Our measurement is obtained by combining posterior samples across 28 combinations of galaxy group catalog and peculiar velocity reconstruction and weighting them by the Bayes evidence of their respective fit (i.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reanalysis of the afterglow models originally analyzed in Mooley et al. (2018) (labeled in the bottom-right corner of each panel). The black X-shaped markers are the image-plane positions of GW170817 with their uncertainty ellipses and are the same as described in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example corner plot of key model parameters’ posteriors of a fit from Section 3.2. The parameters are described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot obtained by sampling from the GW inclination angle (θJN = acos(ı), in degrees) and luminosity distance (in Mpc) KDE that was constructed from the posteriors reported in Abbott et al. (2019). This KDE is used for the GW likelihood described in Section 2.5. would result in significant smearing should the data undergo time and frequency averaging. Hence, the phase center of the calibrated target v… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the viewing angle KDEs described in Appendix D associated with the 4-epoch fit (where uninformative priors on jet geometry are desired): the implied fiducial prior actually used in this study (p, blue; uniform in θv), the resulting fiducial posterior (green), the desired target prior (q, orange; uniform in cos(θv), subject to the constraint θcp<θv) and the ‘new’ corrected posterior that resul… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The historic detection of gravitational waves from the electromagnetically bright binary neutron star merger GW170817 enabled the first standard siren measurement of Hubble's constant ($H_0$). The accuracy and precision of this measurement depends crucially on how well the merger inclination angle is constrained, given its strong covariance with luminosity distance ($D_L$). Modeling the light-curve of the jet's afterglow provides constraints on inclination, but is highly dependent on the similarly uncertain jet opening angle. Past studies have improved on this by invoking high-resolution radio observations, obtained through very long baseline interferometry (VLBI). We present a Bayesian visibility-plane model-fitting framework that provides a more informed and robust measurement of the viewing geometry of GW170817 and of $H_0$, by including all relevant VLBI data, robustly handling systematic uncertainties and rigorously sampling model parameter space. By fitting new hydrodynamical afterglow models with a continuum of jet geometries, we obtain a viewing angle of $18.^{\circ}3-20.^{\circ}3$ (for a fixed cosmology with $D_L=40.7$ Mpc, as used in most previous analyses). We extend our framework to fit for $D_L$ and $H_0$ directly, and marginalize over an ensemble of plausible peculiar velocity corrections to obtain viewing angle $16.^{\circ}8-19.^{\circ}2$, $D_L=44.0\pm1.6$ Mpc and $H_0=65.5\pm4.4$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Notably, the peak of our $H_0$ posterior is within $0.5\sigma$ of the early-Universe Planck $H_0$ value, but $1.7\sigma$ from the late-Universe SH0ES measurement. We discuss potential caveats and the implications of this result in the context of the current discrepancy between early and late-Universe measurements of the Hubble constant.

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 manuscript introduces a Bayesian visibility-plane model-fitting framework for VLBI data of the GW170817 afterglow. It employs new hydrodynamical afterglow models spanning a continuum of jet geometries to constrain the viewing angle, first at fixed cosmology (18.3–20.3°) and then jointly with luminosity distance and H0 while marginalizing over an ensemble of peculiar-velocity corrections, yielding viewing angle 16.8–19.2°, DL = 44.0 ± 1.6 Mpc, and H0 = 65.5 ± 4.4 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}.

Significance. If the hydrodynamical models correctly predict the observed VLBI visibilities across the sampled jet geometries, the analysis supplies an independent standard-siren H0 constraint that lies within 0.5σ of the Planck value. The explicit use of the full visibility data, marginalization over systematics, and continuum jet models represent methodological improvements over prior light-curve-only studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Modeling framework / hydrodynamical afterglow models] The headline constraints on viewing angle, DL, and H0 rest on the assumption that the new hydrodynamical afterglow models accurately reproduce the time-evolving VLBI visibility amplitudes and phases. The manuscript should provide quantitative validation—e.g., residuals between model and observed visibilities for the best-fit parameters, or explicit tests of sensitivity to lateral spreading and surface-brightness profile assumptions—because any systematic mismatch would shift the inclination posterior and, through its covariance with DL, bias H0 (see the modeling section describing the hydrodynamical grid).
  2. [H0 fitting procedure] The marginalization over the ensemble of peculiar-velocity corrections is load-bearing for the quoted H0 uncertainty. The paper must specify the exact construction of this ensemble (range, priors, and number of realizations) and demonstrate that the H0 posterior width is stable when the ensemble is broadened or narrowed, as an incomplete ensemble would understate the total uncertainty on H0.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results figures] The abstract quotes viewing-angle ranges without stating whether they are 68% or 95% credible intervals; this should be clarified in the text and figure captions.
  2. [Notation throughout] Notation for the jet opening angle and viewing angle should be made consistent between the hydrodynamical model description and the posterior plots to avoid reader confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested additions and clarifications into a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling framework / hydrodynamical afterglow models] The headline constraints on viewing angle, DL, and H0 rest on the assumption that the new hydrodynamical afterglow models accurately reproduce the time-evolving VLBI visibility amplitudes and phases. The manuscript should provide quantitative validation—e.g., residuals between model and observed visibilities for the best-fit parameters, or explicit tests of sensitivity to lateral spreading and surface-brightness profile assumptions—because any systematic mismatch would shift the inclination posterior and, through its covariance with DL, bias H0 (see the modeling section describing the hydrodynamical grid).

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation is necessary to support the robustness of the derived constraints. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that presents the residuals between the best-fit hydrodynamical model visibilities and the observed VLBI data at each epoch. We will also include explicit sensitivity tests that vary the lateral spreading prescription and the assumed surface-brightness profile, demonstrating that the viewing-angle posterior remains stable within the quoted 68% credible interval. These additions will directly address the concern that unaccounted model systematics could bias the inclination–DL covariance and therefore H0. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [H0 fitting procedure] The marginalization over the ensemble of peculiar-velocity corrections is load-bearing for the quoted H0 uncertainty. The paper must specify the exact construction of this ensemble (range, priors, and number of realizations) and demonstrate that the H0 posterior width is stable when the ensemble is broadened or narrowed, as an incomplete ensemble would understate the total uncertainty on H0.

    Authors: We will revise the relevant methods section to provide a complete description of the peculiar-velocity ensemble, including the adopted range of corrections, the priors placed on each realization, and the total number of realizations drawn. In addition, we will add a supplementary figure that repeats the full H0 analysis for both a broadened and a narrowed version of the ensemble, confirming that the reported H0 uncertainty is insensitive to reasonable variations in the ensemble construction. This will demonstrate that the marginalization is not understating the total error budget. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central results are produced by direct Bayesian visibility-plane fitting of new hydrodynamical afterglow models (with continuum of jet geometries) to the full VLBI dataset, followed by direct fitting for DL and H0 while marginalizing over an external ensemble of peculiar-velocity corrections. No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction to a quantity defined by the authors' own prior fits, self-citations, or ansatzes; the hydrodynamical models and velocity ensemble are treated as independent inputs. This is the most common honest outcome for a paper whose load-bearing operations remain externally falsifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of hydrodynamical jet afterglow models and the completeness of the peculiar-velocity ensemble; these are domain assumptions rather than new entities or free parameters fitted to the target result.

free parameters (2)
  • jet geometry parameters
    A continuum of jet geometries is explored within the hydrodynamical models rather than fixed a priori.
  • peculiar velocity corrections
    Marginalized over an ensemble of plausible values rather than fixed.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamical simulations accurately capture the relativistic jet afterglow emission for the range of geometries considered
    Invoked when fitting the VLBI visibility data to obtain viewing-angle constraints.
  • domain assumption Bayesian inference with the chosen likelihood and priors properly accounts for all statistical and systematic uncertainties in the VLBI data
    Central to the visibility-plane model-fitting framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5704 in / 1501 out tokens · 59450 ms · 2026-05-13T01:57:27.513968+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471 —. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24471 2041

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 011001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  4. [4]

    Blake, C., & Turner, R. J. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 87, doi: 10.33232/001c.124509

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.124509 2024

  5. [5]

    2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    Burns, E. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7 2020

  6. [6]

    B., Blakeslee, J

    Cantiello, M., Jensen, J. B., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 854, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaad64

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaad64 2018

  7. [7]

    M., Scolnic, D., et al

    Carr, A., Davis, T. M., Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, PASA, 39, e046, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2022.41

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2022.41 2022

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Carrick, J., Turnbull, S. J., Lavaux, G., & Hudson, M. J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv547 2015

  9. [9]

    C., Huchra, J

    Crook, A. C., Huchra, J. P., Martimbeau, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 790, doi: 10.1086/510201 —. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1320, doi: 10.1086/590385

    work page doi:10.1086/510201 2007

  10. [10]

    G., & Duffell, P

    Dastidar, R. G., & Duffell, P. C. 2024, ApJ, 976, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad86bf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad86bf 2024

  11. [11]

    Science , keywords =

    Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2020, Science, 370, 1450, doi: 10.1126/science.abb4317

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb4317 2020

  12. [12]

    2024, ApJL, 971, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66d2

    DuPont, M., & MacFadyen, A. 2024, ApJL, 971, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66d2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad66d2 2024

  13. [13]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Paragi, Z., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau8815 2019

  14. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae198

    Gianfagna, G., Piro, L., Pannarale, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae198

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae198 2024

  15. [15]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  16. [16]

    2026, Key reproduction data for the paper ‘Revisiting GW170817 at milliarcsecond scale: high-precision constraints on jet geometry and H0’ by Gourdji et al

    Gourdji, K. 2026, Key reproduction data for the paper ‘Revisiting GW170817 at milliarcsecond scale: high-precision constraints on jet geometry and H0’ by Gourdji et al. 2026, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20078339

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20078339 2026

  17. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    Govreen-Segal, T., & Nakar, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1628 2023

  18. [18]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed

    Library, Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck, 109, doi: 10.1007/0-306-48080-8 7

    work page doi:10.1007/0-306-48080-8

  20. [20]

    2017, ApJL, 851, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009

    Guidorzi, C., Margutti, R., Brout, D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009 2017

  21. [21]

    S., et al

    Hajela, A., Margutti, R., Bright, J. S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a 2022

  22. [22]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Hjorth, J., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9110

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9110 2017

  23. [23]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Holz, D. E., & Hughes, S. A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 629, 15, doi: 10.1086/431341

    work page doi:10.1086/431341 2005

  24. [24]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 940, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1

    Hotokezaka, K., Nakar, E., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 940, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1 2019

  25. [25]

    Howlett, C., & Davis, T. M. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa049

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa049 2020

  26. [26]

    1961, Theory of Probability, 3rd Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford)

    Jeffreys, H. 1961, Theory of Probability, 3rd Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford)

    work page 1961

  27. [27]

    P., & Hotokezaka, K

    Katira, A., Mooley, K. P., & Hotokezaka, K. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf579

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf579 2025

  28. [28]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Cotton, B. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 497

    work page 2006

  29. [29]

    Kourkchi, E., & Tully, R. B. 2017, ApJ, 843, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76db

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa76db 2017

  30. [30]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 , urldate =

    Lewis, A. 2025, JCAP, 08, 025, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/025 2025

  31. [31]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2009

    Lilow, R., & Nusser, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2009 2021

  32. [32]

    P., Brightman, M., et al

    Makhathini, S., Mooley, K. P., Brightman, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc 2021

  33. [33]

    and Anderson, Jay and Lu, Wenbin , year=

    Mooley, K. P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W. 2022, Nature, 610, 273, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 2022

  34. [34]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 2018

  35. [35]

    and Jasche, Jens and Wandelt, Benjamin D

    Mukherjee, S., Lavaux, G., Bouchet, F. R., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936724 M¨ uller, M., Mukherjee, S., & Ryan, G. 2024, ApJL, 977, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dd1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936724 2021

  36. [36]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2021, ApJ, 909, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd 2021

  37. [37]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 90, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1120

    Nicolaou, C., Lahav, O., Lemos, P., Hartley, W., & Braden, J. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 90, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1120

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1120 2020

  38. [38]

    Sievers, J. L. 2010, ApJ, 725, 496, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/496 25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/496 2010

  39. [39]

    2024, Phys

    Palmese, A., Kaur, R., Hajela, A., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063508

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063508 2024

  40. [40]

    J., Marais, P

    Perkins, S. J., Marais, P. C., Zwart, J. T. L., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Computing, 12, 73, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.06.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.06.003 2015

  41. [41]

    R., Kenworthy, W

    Peterson, E. R., Kenworthy, W. D., Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4698 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4698 2022

  42. [42]

    Pradel, N., Charlot, P., & Lestrade, J. F. 2006, A&A, 452, 1099, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053021

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053021 2006

  43. [43]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  44. [44]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf 2020

  45. [45]

    Hudson, M. J. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2032

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2032 2020

  46. [46]

    Schutz, B. F. 1986, Nature, 323, 310, doi: 10.1038/323310a0

    work page doi:10.1038/323310a0 1986

  47. [47]

    C., Pearson, T

    Shepherd, M. C., Pearson, T. J., & Taylor, G. B. 1994, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 26, 987–989

    work page 1994

  48. [48]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  49. [49]

    M., Magoulas, C., Colless, M., et al

    Springob, C. M., Magoulas, C., Colless, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1743

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1743 2014

  50. [50]

    2018, PhRvD, 98, 022008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.022008

    Takeda, H., Nishizawa, A., Michimura, Y., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 022008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.022008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.022008 2018

  51. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 4527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty409

    Tazzari, M., Beaujean, F., & Testi, L. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty409

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty409 2018

  52. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3533

    Troja, E., O’Connor, B., Ryan, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3533

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3533 2022

  53. [53]

    Verde, L., Treu, T., & Riess, A. G. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 891, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 2019

  54. [54]

    , keywords =

    Wang, H., & Giannios, D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd39c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd39c 2021