Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Hawai`i Supernova Flows: Bulk Flow Measurements using SNe Ia in the Optical and NIR

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Bulk flow speeds from Type Ia supernovae fall between 100 and 400 km/s and match Lambda-CDM predictions in both optical and near-infrared bands.

desk verdict New bulk flow numbers from the Hawai`i SN sample sit inside LCDM expectations across eight method combinations, but the abstract leaves the quantitative backing for that claim thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.17142 v1 pith:PHAMLVAL submitted 2026-06-15 astro-ph.CO

Aaron Do , Kaisey S. Mandel , Benjamin J. Shappee , R. Brent Tully , John L. Tonry , David Rubin , David O. Jones , Mitchell Dixon
show 4 more authors
Thomas de Jaeger Dan Scolnic Erik R. Peterson Christopher R. Burns
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords bulkflowTypeIasupernovaepeculiarvelocitiesLambda-CDMHawaiiSupernovaFlowsopticalphotometrynear-infraredcosmology
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 measures the average peculiar velocity within a sphere out to redshift 0.1 by combining redshifts with distance estimates to Type Ia supernovae drawn from the Hawaii Supernova Flows sample. Speeds derived this way range from roughly 100 to 400 km/s, yet every combination of estimator and wavelength band produces a value inside the scatter that Lambda-CDM assigns to such a volume. The work also tests how much the result changes when the analyst switches between two bulk-flow estimators, two supernova distance methods, and optical versus near-infrared photometry. The differences stay small enough that none of the measurements leave the model’s expected band. A sympathetic reader therefore sees the local velocity field as consistent with the standard picture in which primordial density fluctuations have grown into today’s structure under Lambda-CDM.

What carries the argument

Bulk flow, the volume-averaged peculiar velocity estimated from the difference between observed redshifts and Hubble-flow distances to Type Ia supernovae.

What would settle it

A measured bulk-flow speed lying well above the upper edge of the Lambda-CDM variance band for a z ≲ 0.1 volume, or a statistically significant systematic offset between otherwise identical optical and near-infrared results.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using redshifts and optical and near-infrared distance estimates to Type Ia supernovae within subsets of the Hawaii Supernova Flows dataset, the bulk flow within z ≲ 0.1 is inferred to have speeds between approximately 100 and 400 km/s. These values are all consistent with the predictions of Lambda-CDM, which expects a mean bulk flow of zero but a variance set by the Hubble constant, the growth rate of structure, and the matter power spectrum. The analysis employs two bulk flow estimators, two types of SN Ia distance estimators, and data in two wavelength regimes to quantify the systematic uncertainty introduced by discrete methodological choices.

Load-bearing premise

The discrete choices of bulk flow estimator, SN Ia distance estimator, and wavelength regime do not introduce systematic offsets large enough to move the measurements outside the Lambda-CDM variance band.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The local peculiar-velocity field out to z ~ 0.1 aligns with the variance expected under Lambda-CDM.
  • Switching among the two bulk-flow estimators, two distance estimators, and optical versus near-infrared data does not produce offsets large enough to exit the model band.
  • Type Ia supernovae supply usable peculiar-velocity tracers in both optical and near-infrared regimes for bulk-flow studies.
  • No evidence appears for anomalous bulk flows that would require extensions beyond Lambda-CDM at these scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the consistency holds in larger samples, local bulk flows are unlikely to explain tensions seen in other cosmological probes.
  • Near-infrared distances may reduce dust-related scatter without changing the bulk-flow conclusion, an effect worth testing with future all-sky NIR surveys.
  • The same dataset and estimators could be applied to modified-gravity models to check whether they predict a different variance band at low redshift.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript measures the local bulk flow (z ≲ 0.1) using SNe Ia from the Hawai`i Supernova Flows sample in both optical and NIR bands. Two bulk-flow estimators and two SN Ia distance estimators are applied; the resulting speeds lie between ~100 and 400 km/s and are stated to be consistent with the variance expected in ΛCDM. A secondary goal is to quantify the systematic uncertainty introduced by the discrete methodological choices.

Significance. If the consistency claim survives a full quantitative comparison across all eight methodological combinations, the work supplies a useful local-universe test of the predicted bulk-flow variance, leveraging the reduced dust systematics of NIR data. The multi-method approach is a positive feature for assessing robustness.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 and Table 2] §4 (Results) and Table 2: the central consistency claim requires every one of the 2×2×2 = 8 combinations to lie inside the ΛCDM variance band appropriate to its volume and window function. No table or figure supplies the measured speed, its uncertainty, and the corresponding ΛCDM σ_v for each of the eight cases, so it is impossible to verify that methodological systematics remain smaller than the distance to the boundary.
  2. [§3.1–3.2] §3.1–3.2 (Estimators and variance calculation): the window function, adopted H_0, fσ_8, and P(k) used to compute the ΛCDM variance must be stated explicitly and shown to be identical for all eight data subsets; otherwise the comparison is not uniform.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 1] Figure 1: the caption should list the exact number of SNe retained after each quality cut for the optical and NIR subsamples.
  2. Notation: the symbol for the bulk-flow vector is used interchangeably with its magnitude in several places; a consistent convention would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to enhance the verifiability of our consistency claims with ΛCDM.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 and Table 2] §4 (Results) and Table 2: the central consistency claim requires every one of the 2×2×2 = 8 combinations to lie inside the ΛCDM variance band appropriate to its volume and window function. No table or figure supplies the measured speed, its uncertainty, and the corresponding ΛCDM σ_v for each of the eight cases, so it is impossible to verify that methodological systematics remain smaller than the distance to the boundary.

    Authors: We agree that explicit tabulation of all eight combinations is required to allow verification of the consistency claim. In the revised manuscript we will expand Table 2 (or add a new table) to list, for each of the eight cases, the measured bulk-flow speed, its uncertainty, and the corresponding ΛCDM σ_v computed for that specific volume and window function. This will directly demonstrate that every combination lies inside the expected variance band and that methodological systematics do not exceed the distance to the boundary. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.1–3.2] §3.1–3.2 (Estimators and variance calculation): the window function, adopted H_0, fσ_8, and P(k) used to compute the ΛCDM variance must be stated explicitly and shown to be identical for all eight data subsets; otherwise the comparison is not uniform.

    Authors: We will revise §§3.1–3.2 to state explicitly the window function, the adopted H_0, fσ_8, and the matter power spectrum P(k) employed for the variance calculation. We will also add a short paragraph confirming that these parameters are identical for all eight data subsets (with any volume-dependent window-function adjustments documented). This ensures the ΛCDM comparison is performed uniformly across all methodological combinations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measurements compared to external ΛCDM predictions

full rationale

The paper infers bulk flow speeds from SN Ia redshifts and distance estimates within the Hawai`i Supernova Flows dataset, then states that the resulting 100–400 km/s values lie inside the variance band predicted by standard ΛCDM (tied to H0, fσ8, and P(k)). This comparison uses an external theoretical expectation rather than any quantity fitted or defined from the same dataset. No equation reduces a measured speed to a parameter estimated inside the paper, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem that forces the result, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The secondary discussion of methodological systematics (two estimators × two distance methods × two wavelengths) is presented as an uncertainty budget, not as a derivation that collapses to the input data by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are stated. The comparison rests on the standard assumption that ΛCDM correctly predicts the bulk-flow variance from the matter power spectrum and growth factor.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM model supplies the expected variance of bulk flows within a given volume
    Paper states that measured speeds are consistent with ΛCDM predictions without deriving the variance from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hawai`i Supernova Flows: Bulk Flow Measurements using SNe Ia in the Optical and NIR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHAMLVAL

@misc{pith2026260617142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hawai`i Supernova Flows: Bulk Flow Measurements using SNe Ia in the Optical and NIR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHAMLVAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.17142}
}
abstract

The present day peculiar velocity-field was sourced by primordial density fluctuations and sculpted over the lifespan of the Universe. Cosmological models such as $\Lambda$CDM make predictions for various statistical properties of peculiar velocities. Bulk flow, the average velocity within a given volume, has an expectation value of $\vec{0}$ due to isotropy, and a variance directly tied to the Hubble constant, the growth-rate of structure, and the matter power spectrum. In this paper, we use the redshifts and optical and near-infrared distance estimates to Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) within subsets of the Hawai`i Supernova Flows dataset to infer the bulk flow within $z \lesssim 0.1$. The inferred speeds vary between ~100 to 400 km/s but are all consistent with the predictions of $\Lambda$CDM. As a secondary focus, we discuss the systematic uncertainty introduced by the discrete choice of methodology using two bulk flow estimators, two types of SN Ia distance estimators, and data covering two distinct regimes in wavelength space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We use the Peery MVE (top row) and Nusser MLE (bottom row) methods to analyse 1500 mock catalogues with simulated bulk flows. The differences between the recovered (B⃗ ) and simulated (B⃗ sim) values are plotted against simulated values, with the left three columns representing Cartesian projections of the bulk flow and the rightmost column representing the total speed of the bulk flow. The differences in the rightm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We present the diagonal components of the tensor angle￾averaged window-function W˜ 2 (k) for the SNPY_EBV sample, calculated using Equation 8 and weights inferred for the Peery MVE. The matter power spectrum generated with CAMB using H0 ≈ 70.7 km s−1 Mpc−1 and q0 = −0.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Redshift Dependence of $H_0$ Dipole in Pantheon+ Supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A dipole in the locally measured Hubble constant appears at 2-3 sigma in the lowest-redshift Pantheon+ supernova bins, points near the Shapley supercluster and CMB dipole, and disappears for higher redshift thresholds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Amenouche M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A...3A 694, A3

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452134 2025

  2. [2]

    M., Howlett C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.4083A 463, 4083

    Andersen P., Davis T. M., Howlett C., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.4083A 463, 4083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2252 2016

  3. [3]

    Appleby S., Shafieloo A., Johnson A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801...76A 801, 76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/76 2015

  4. [4]

    S., Mandel, K

    Avelino A., Friedman A. S., Mandel K. S., Jones D. O., Challis P. J., Kirshner R. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..106A 887, 106

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a16 2019

  5. [5]

    Aviles A., Bravetti A., Capozziello S., Luongo O., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..90d3531A 90, 043531

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.043531 2014

  6. [6]

    MNRAS , author =

    Barone-Nugent R. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21412.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.1007B 425, 1007

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21412.x 2012

  7. [7]

    Bertschinger E., Dekel A., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...336L...5B 336, L5

    work page doi:10.1086/185348 1989

  8. [8]

    Bingham E., et al., 2019, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 28:1

    2019

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    S., Lavaux G., Hudson M

    Boruah S. S., Lavaux G., Hudson M. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2985 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.4529B 517, 4529

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Grayling M., Thorp S., Mandel K

    Boyd B. M., Grayling M., Thorp S., Mandel K. S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240715923B p. arXiv:2407.15923

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    M., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260311165B p

    Boyd B. M., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2603.11165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260311165B p. arXiv:2603.11165

    2026 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....141...19B 141, 19

    Burns C. R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....141...19B 141, 19

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae51c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...56B 869, 56

    Burns C. R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae51c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...56B 869, 56

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Lavaux G., Hudson M

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

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    Coles P., Lucchin F., 2002, Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, Second Edition . John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    2002

  8. [16]

    Colin J., Mohayaee R., Sarkar S., Shafieloo A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18402.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..264C 414, 264

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Scrimgeour M

    Davis T. M., Scrimgeour M. I., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu920 , 442, 1117

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Banik I., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2511.03394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251103394D p

    Desmond H., Stiskalek R., Najera J. A., Banik I., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2511.03394 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251103394D p. arXiv:2511.03394

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Do A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536..624D 536, 624

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    M., 2024, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/ad550d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024CQGra..41n5007E 41, 145007

    Ebrahimian E., Krishnan C., Mondol R., Sheikh-Jabbari M. M., 2024, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/ad550d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024CQGra..41n5007E 41, 145007

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    Eddington A. S., 1913, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1913MNRAS..73..359E 73, 359

    1913 doi

  14. [22]

    Feindt U., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321880 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A..90F 560, A90

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Watkins R., Hudson M

    Feldman H. A., Watkins R., Hudson M. J., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17052.x , 407, 2328

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..193F 475, 193

    Foley R. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx3136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.475..193F 475, 193

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Galbany L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A..95G 679, A95

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    B., 1992, @doi [Statistical Science] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992StaSc...7..457G 7, 457

    Gelman A., Rubin D. B., 1992, @doi [Statistical Science] 10.1214/ss/1177011136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992StaSc...7..457G 7, 457

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Stern H

    Gelman A., Carlin J. B., Stern H. S., Dunson D. B., Vehtari A., Rubin D. B., 2013, Bayesian Data Analysis, third edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science Series, CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, https://stat.columbia.edu/ gelman/book/

    2013

  20. [28]

    Ginolin M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450378 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...695A.140G 695, A140

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Dhawan S., Uzsoy A

    Grayling M., Thorp S., Mandel K. S., Dhawan S., Uzsoy A. S. M., Boyd B. M., Hayes E. E., Ward S. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1202 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531..953G 531, 953

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Lavaux G., Hoffman Y., Tully R

    Graziani R., Courtois H. M., Lavaux G., Hoffman Y., Tully R. B., Copin Y., Pomar \`e de D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.5438G 488, 5438

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, @doi https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536

    Hallin M., 2014, Gauss–Markov Theorem in Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, @doi https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118445112.stat07536

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Bilicki M., Libeskind N

    Hellwing W. A., Bilicki M., Libeskind N. I., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..97j3519H 97, 103519

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Tully R

    Hoffman Y., Courtois H. M., Tully R. B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.4494H 449, 4494

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    I., Tully R

    Hoffman Y., Nusser A., Valade A., Libeskind N. I., Tully R. B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1457 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3380H 505, 3380

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Hudson M

    Hollinger A. M., Hudson M. J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa4039 , 502, 3723

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Howlett C., Lewis A., Hall A., Challinor A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/04/027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCAP...04..027H 2012, 027

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    Howlett C., Manera M., Percival W., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Computing] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2015.07.003 , 12, 109

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Colless M., Qin F., Lai Y., Tully R

    Howlett C., Said K., Lucey J. R., Colless M., Qin F., Lai Y., Tully R. B., Davis T. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1681 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515..953H 515, 953

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    Johnson R., Wichern D., 2007, Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    2007

  32. [40]

    O., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac755b , 933, 172

    Jones D. O., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac755b , 933, 172

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Kaiser N., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/231.2.149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.231..149K 231, 149

    1988 doi

  34. [42]

    Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Kocevski D., Ebeling H., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/592947 , 686, L49

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    Kattner S., et al., 2012, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/664734 , 124, 114

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30d8 , 923, 265

    Kenworthy W. D., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac30d8 , 923, 265

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Kessler R., Scolnic D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836...56K 836, 56

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...07..020K 2023, 020

    Krishnan C., Mondol R., Sheikh-Jabbari M. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...07..020K 2023, 020

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Hlozek R

    Kunz M., Bassett B. A., Hlozek R. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.103508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhRvD..75j3508K 75, 103508

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    Lavaux G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..172L 457, 172

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    Lewis A., Challinor A., Lasenby A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309179 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...538..473L 538, 473

    2000 doi

  42. [50]

    Li M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..151L 761, 151

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Burstein D., Davies R

    Lynden-Bell D., Faber S. M., Burstein D., Davies R. L., Dressler A., Terlevich R. J., Wegner G., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...326...19L 326, 19

    1988 doi

  44. [52]

    Ma Y.-Z., Pan J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437.1996M 437, 1996

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    A., 2011, @doi [Phys

    Ma Y.-Z., Gordon C., Feldman H. A., 2011, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.103002 , 83, 103002

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    C., 1930, Journal and Proceedings of Asiatic Society of Bengal New series, 26, 541

    Mahalanobis P. C., 1930, Journal and Proceedings of Asiatic Society of Bengal New series, 26, 541

    1930

  47. [55]

    G., 1922, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922MeLuF.100....1M 100, 1

    Malmquist K. G., 1922, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922MeLuF.100....1M 100, 1

    1922

  48. [56]

    S., Narayan G., Kirshner R

    Mandel K. S., Narayan G., Kirshner R. P., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/120 , 731, 120

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    S., Thorp S., Narayan G., Friedman A

    Mandel K. S., Thorp S., Narayan G., Friedman A. S., Avelino A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3496 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3939M 510, 3939

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Nusser A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795....3N 795, 3

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    Nusser A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..178N 455, 178

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    Nusser A., Davis M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...93N 736, 93

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02197.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.303..685N 303, 685

    Nusser A., Sheth R. K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02197.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.303..685N 303, 685

    1999 doi

  54. [62]

    Olver F., Lozier D., Boisvert R., Clark C., 2010, NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions

    2010

  55. [63]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1980, The large-scale structure of the universe . Princeton University Press

    1980

  56. [64]

    Peebles P. J. E., 2022, @doi [Annals of Physics] 10.1016/j.aop.2022.169159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AnPhy.44769159P 447, 169159

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1368P 481, 1368

    Peery S., Watkins R., Feldman H. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1368P 481, 1368

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2478P 522, 2478

    Peterson E. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.2478P 522, 2478

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    Phan D., Pradhan N., Jankowiak M., 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Pierel J. D. R., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220905594P p. arXiv:2209.05594

    2022

  61. [69]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    Prideaux-Ghee J., Leclercq F., Lavaux G., Heavens A., Jasche J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4191P 518, 4191

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Qin F., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..242Q 21, 242

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    Qin F., Howlett C., Staveley-Smith L., Hong T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.5150Q 477, 5150

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    Qin F., Howlett C., Staveley-Smith L., Hong T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2826 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1920Q 482, 1920

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Qin F., Parkinson D., Howlett C., Said K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac249d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...59Q 922, 59

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    Riess A. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    Rubin D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813..137R 813, 137

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    arXiv:2311.12098

    Rubin D., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231112098R p. arXiv:2311.12098

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    arXiv:2601.19854

    Rubin D., Hoyt T., Aldering G., Perlmutter S., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2601.19854 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260119854R p. arXiv:2601.19854

    2026 doi

  71. [79]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859..101S 859, 101

    Scolnic D. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859..101S 859, 101

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a , 938, 113

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..386S 455, 386

    Scrimgeour M. I., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..386S 455, 386

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2644S 450, 2644

    Sorce J. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2644S 450, 2644

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2677S 445, 2677

    Springob C. M., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2677S 445, 2677

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.1886S 456, 1886

    Springob C. M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2648 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.1886S 456, 1886

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    Stanishev V., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A..45S 615, A45

    2018 doi

  79. [87]

    A., Willick J

    Strauss M. A., Willick J. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0370-1573(95)00013-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PhR...261..271S 261, 271

    1995 doi

  80. [88]

    Talbot C., Farah A., Galaudage S., Golomb J., Tong H., 2025, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.07753 , 10, 7753

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

    S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2360T 517, 2360

    Thorp S., Mandel K. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2360T 517, 2360

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    S., Jones D

    Thorp S., Mandel K. S., Jones D. O., Ward S. M., Narayan G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.4310T 508, 4310

    2021 doi

  83. [91]

    G., Perivolaropoulos L., Asvesta K., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2026.03.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026PhR..1178....1T 1178, 1

    Tsagas C. G., Perivolaropoulos L., Asvesta K., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2026.03.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026PhR..1178....1T 1178, 1

    2026 doi

  84. [92]

    B., Courtois H

    Tully R. B., Courtois H. M., Sorce J. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152...50T 152, 50

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...94T 944, 94

    Tully R. B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...94T 944, 94

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    J., Hudson M

    Turnbull S. J., Hudson M. J., Feldman H. A., Hicken M., Kirshner R. P., Watkins R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20050.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420..447T 420, 447

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    I., Graziani R., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1244 , 513, 5148

    Valade A., Hoffman Y., Libeskind N. I., Graziani R., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac1244 , 513, 5148

    2022 doi

  88. [96]

    Vehtari A., Gelman A., Simpson D., Carpenter B., B \"u rkner P.-C., 2021, @doi [Bayesian Analysis] 10.1214/20-BA1221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021BayAn..16..667V 16, 667

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..111W 956, 111

    Ward S. M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956..111W 956, 111

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1868W 450, 1868

    Watkins R., Feldman H. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1868W 450, 1868

    2015 doi

  91. [99]

    A., Hudson M

    Watkins R., Feldman H. A., Hudson M. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14089.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.392..743W 392, 743

    2009 doi

  92. [100]

    Watkins R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1885W 524, 1885

    2023 doi

  93. [101]

    D., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240801904W p

    Weaver K. D., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.01904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240801904W p. arXiv:2408.01904

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    M., Howlett C., Davis T

    Whitford A. M., Howlett C., Davis T. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.3051W 526, 3051

    2023 doi

  95. [103]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689..377W 689, 377

    Wood-Vasey W. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689..377W 689, 377

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.