Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 48 references

A KBC-like void can ease the Hubble tension to about 2 sigma, but cannot erase it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 10:19 UTC pith:N57R2SVH

load-bearing objection Solid extension paper: void-induced Hubble shifts mapped across w0waCDM, with clear results and an honest caveat; the main negative claim about KBC depth is conditional on a point-value benchmark. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20257 v1 pith:N57R2SVH submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Can cosmic voids ease the Hubble tension? Local expansion in w₀w_aCDM

Tommaso Moretti , Noemi Frusciante , Giovanni Verza This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords Hubble tensioncosmic voidsKBC voidw0waCDMdynamical dark energylocal expansion rateSH0ESPlanck
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether a local cosmic void can explain why the SH0ES distance ladder measures a higher Hubble constant than Planck's CMB calibration. Using a hydrodynamical model of a spherical inverse top-hat underdensity evolving in flat w0waCDM backgrounds, it computes the void-induced boost to the local expansion rate. It finds that reproducing the full SH0ES value requires a present-day void with enclosed density contrast about -0.44, substantially deeper than the -0.3 contrast associated with the KBC void. A KBC-like void reduces the SH0ES-Planck discrepancy to roughly 2 sigma but does not remove it, and allowing for dynamical dark energy changes the required depth only at the percent level. The paper concludes that local underdensities matter for low-redshift H0 inferences but do not resolve the tension in this setup.

Core claim

In a Planck-calibrated flat LambdaCDM background, matching the SH0ES measurement of H0 through a void-induced local expansion excess requires a present-day enclosed density contrast of about -0.44, roughly 50% deeper than the KBC benchmark of -0.3. A KBC-like void lowers the statistical tension from above 5 sigma to about 2 sigma, and the tension remains below 3 sigma only for voids with depths between about -0.64 and -0.22. Varying the dark-energy equation-of-state parameters w0 and wa over broad CPL ranges, including regions motivated by recent DES and DESI analyses, shifts the required depth by less than a percent, so dynamical dark energy cannot rescue a shallow KBC-like void. The paper

What carries the argument

The central object is the hydrodynamical evolution equation for the fully nonlinear Eulerian matter density contrast δE in a spherical inverse top-hat void, combined with mass conservation to obtain the local expansion rate Hv = 1 - (1/3)(δE'/(1+δE)). The void's initial contrast is tuned by shooting so that the present-day depth matches a chosen δE; shell-crossing marks the limit of validity. The model isolates how the void Hubble shift depends on δE, Ωm0, w0, and wa, showing that the matter sector dominates the effect.

Load-bearing premise

The paper fixes the KBC-like local underdensity's matter contrast at δE ≈ -0.3 and treats that as the depth of a spherical top-hat void; if the true enclosed matter contrast of our local region is significantly deeper, the conclusion that voids cannot resolve the tension would not follow.

What would settle it

Measure the enclosed matter contrast inside a sphere of radius roughly 300 Mpc around the Milky Way using a tracer that maps to total matter (not galaxy luminosity) and check whether it reaches -0.44 or deeper; if it does, the paper's central claim that the local void is too shallow to explain SH0ES would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Matching SH0ES in a Planck-calibrated background requires δE ≈ -0.44, far deeper than the KBC-like local underdensity.
  • A KBC-like void reduces the SH0ES-Planck tension to roughly 2σ, which is an alleviation but not a resolution.
  • Dynamical dark energy with DES+DESI-motivated parameters changes the required void depth by less than ~1%, so late-time DE dynamics is not degenerate with local void effects.
  • Low-redshift H0 measurements should be corrected for local-structure effects before comparing with CMB-based values, even though such corrections do not fully reconcile the two.
  • The reported redshift-dependent H0(z) trend can be formally fitted by an effective enclosed matter profile, but the profile requires an inner void as deep as -0.44, undermining a purely local-matter explanation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the true local matter contrast is deeper than -0.3 (e.g., because galaxy-luminosity underdensities do not map linearly to total matter), the KBC benchmark may be too shallow and the paper's main conclusion could weaken; testing this requires tracer-independent matter estimates.
  • An off-center observer or a non-spherical void might produce a larger apparent H0 for the same mean contrast, suggesting extensions beyond the spherical top-hat assumption that could alter the quantitative conclusion.
  • The percent-level insensitivity to w0 and wa implies that late-time dark-energy parameters fitted from low-redshift data are unlikely to be strongly contaminated by local-void effects, which is useful for parameter estimation but also means DE flexibility cannot absorb the void mismatch.
  • The tomographic reconstruction offers a direct target for future surveys: measuring the enclosed matter profile on 100-300 Mpc scales with sufficient precision could confirm or rule out the -0.44 depth required to fully remove the tension.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the impact of a local spherical inverse top-hat void on the low-redshift Hubble rate in flat w0waCDM cosmologies. Using a hydrodynamical spherical-collapse equation (eq. 2.7) together with mass conservation (eqs. 2.12-2.14), it computes the void-induced Hubble shift as a function of enclosed density contrast δE and cosmological parameters. The main results are: (i) the void Hubble shift is controlled primarily by δE and Ωm,0, with CPL dark energy giving only subdominant corrections; (ii) in a Planck-calibrated ΛCDM background, matching the SH0ES value requires δE(z=0)≈−0.44, while a KBC-like δE=−0.3 reduces the SH0ES-Planck discrepancy to about 2σ but does not remove it; (iii) the reported redshift dependence of binned H0 estimates can be formally reproduced by an effective enclosed matter profile, which the authors interpret as a consistency test rather than as evidence for a time-varying background H0.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a transparent and largely analytic quantification of local-void effects on H0 in an extended dark-energy background, confirming with a different model the conclusions of earlier LTB-based analyses. The explicit derivation of the evolution equation, the mass-conservation relations, and the checks against shell-crossing make the forward calculation reproducible and trustworthy. A particular strength is that the negative conclusion is obtained from a self-consistent dynamical model rather than from order-of-magnitude estimates. However, the central claim is only as strong as the external calibration of the KBC depth; the paper's own reconstruction (Fig. 11) shows that the innermost bin already requires δE≈−0.44, so the difference between 'alleviate' and 'resolve' hinges on a factor not much larger than typical tracer-to-matter mapping uncertainties.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 8] The headline conclusion that KBC-like voids cannot resolve the Hubble tension rests on fixing δ_KBC_E = −0.3 as a point value. Refs. [14–16] measure galaxy luminosity or number-density contrasts, not total matter contrast; the mapping involves bias and light-to-mass conversion that is neither performed nor assigned an uncertainty. The SH0ES-matching depth is δE≈−0.44, only about 47% deeper. If the true enclosed matter contrast of the local structure is closer to −0.4, or if an off-center observer enhances the effective Hubble shift, the conclusion no longer follows. Please propagate an error budget for δ_KBC_E, or state the robustness interval within which the qualitative conclusion ('cannot remove the tension') remains valid.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 11] The reconstruction section claims that the binned H0 values can be represented by an enclosed matter profile that is 'phenomenologically sensible' because it does not display extreme bin-to-bin variations. But each bin is matched independently by construction, so a solution always exists. The non-trivial claim is that these ΔE values can be embedded in one continuous, physically admissible mass distribution; the paper only checks this visually. Moreover, the binned values imply sign changes in ΔE (underdense at low z, overdense around z≈0.8–1.0), and no quantitative test of cumulative-profile monotonicity or comparison to local matter measurements is provided. Please add a quantitative compatibility criterion or soften the claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (2.13) and (3.9)] The same symbol H_v appears to denote both the physical local Hubble rate and the dimensionless normalized rate. Please use distinct notation (e.g., an overbar or a calligraphic symbol) to avoid confusion, especially in Eq. (3.9) where both quantities appear in the same display equation.
  2. [§3.3, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5)] The DES+DESI constraints are quoted as 1σ intervals without specifying the exact likelihood or probe combination. A brief description or a reference to the relevant table in [10,36] would help the reader assess the adopted ranges.
  3. [§3.4] The assignment of each binned H0,zi to the bin midpoint and the radius R(z̄_i)=d_comov/(1+z̄_i) is a modeling choice. The sensitivity of the reconstructed ΔE profile to the representative redshift (e.g., bin edges or a luminosity-weighted mean) should be tested, since the bin width is not negligible for the lowest-z bins.
  4. [Fig. 11] In the right panel, only central values are shown. Propagated 1σ error bars would make the claim of 'no extreme bin-to-bin variations' easier to evaluate; at minimum, mention the expected shifts from the left-panel uncertainties.
  5. [References] Reference [9] (Adame et al., DESI) is missing the publication year in the reference list.
  6. [Abstract] The phrase 'substantially deeper' for −0.44 versus −0.3 is arguably too strong; 'deeper by roughly 50%' would be more neutral and better matched to the uncertainties discussed in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the forward void calculation is self-contained and the inverse/exercises are explicitly labeled as matching and consistency tests.

full rationale

The paper's core forward calculation starts from the standard continuity/Euler/Poisson system (eqs. 2.3-2.6), reduces to the spherical evolution equation (2.7), and computes the void Hubble shift Hv via eqs. (2.13)-(2.14). Given a prescribed present-day enclosed contrast δE (the model input), the resulting Hv and residual Nσ are genuine outputs of the hydrodynamical model. The Planck-calibrated background (eq. 3.3) and the SH0ES value are external data, so the comparison in Sec. 3.3 is not fitted to itself. The required depth δE≈-0.44 is obtained by inverting the matching relation H_SH0ES = Hv H_P18 (eq. 3.9), and the paper explicitly calls this 'an idealized estimate... rather than a forward model' of the SH0ES pipeline. The KBC benchmark δKBC_E=-0.3 is an external input from the observational literature; whether it is the correct matter contrast is a systematic/robustness concern, not circularity. Likewise, the tomographic reconstruction in Sec. 3.4 solves eq. (3.19) bin-by-bin for ΔE so that the binned H0,zi are reproduced by construction; however, the paper repeatedly labels this a 'consistency test' / 'phenomenological representation' and disclaims any claim to explain an evolving background H0 (Sec. 3.4 and abstract). Thus no prediction masquerades as a pure derivation. Self-citations to the authors' previous framework [34,35] provide the model but the present paper restates the governing equations and assumptions; they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem. Not flagging circular steps; score reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation to the model framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard spherical-collapse framework inherited from [34] and on a fixed KBC benchmark depth rather than on new physics. The only free numerical inputs are the initial void contrasts and per-bin contrasts, both set by shooting to match chosen target depths or binned H0 values. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • δ_v,in (initial void density contrast) = Tuned by shooting; e.g., -0.442 to match SH0ES in ΛCDM, -0.3 for KBC benchmark
    The initial void contrast is adjusted so that the evolved solution reaches a chosen present-day depth; this boundary condition does not come from data and controls the resulting ΔH_v. See §2, eqs. (2.8)-(2.10).
  • Per-bin enclosed density contrast ΔE(z̄_i) in §3.4 = Solved per bin to reproduce H0,zi; innermost bin ≈ -0.44
    Eight binned H0 values are reproduced exactly by solving for eight ΔE values via shooting; the reconstruction is a fit with one fitted number per bin. See §3.4, eq. (3.19).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spherical-collapse ODE (eq. 2.7) valid in Newtonian weak-field sub-horizon limit with no radiation and no anisotropic stress.
    Used to evolve δE for all results; derived from EFE + conservation in §2. Validity ends at shell crossing, which the paper checks via eq. (2.10).
  • domain assumption The void profile remains an inverse top-hat until shell crossing.
    §2: 'the density profile preserves its inverse top-hat form throughout the evolution, up to shell-crossing'. This justifies following a single representative point.
  • domain assumption Initial conditions set in an EdS regime at a_in=10^-7 with δ'_E = δ_E, neglecting the decaying mode; late-time results insensitive to this.
    §2: 'This choice is not meant to provide a realistic description of the radiation era... The late-time results are insensitive to this assumption, as discussed in appendix B of [34]' — inherited from the companion paper.
  • domain assumption The KBC-like local underdensity is represented by δE ≈ -0.3 at z=0.
    §3.3: 'we use δKBC_E ≡ −0.3 as an effective benchmark for the enclosed matter contrast associated with a KBC-like local underdensity.' No error bar is attached; treated as a fixed input.
  • ad hoc to paper For the H0(z) reconstruction, each binned H0,zi is assigned to a single spherical shell at the bin midpoint, with R(z̄_i) = d_comov/(1+z̄_i).
    §3.4: 'This assignment should be understood as an effective simplifying prescription.' The reconstruction result depends on this binning/midpoint choice.
  • domain assumption The local expansion rate inside the void H_v is what an observer at the void center would infer; SH0ES H0 equals H_v(z=0) × H0^P18.
    §3.3, eq. (3.9) and the following caveat: 'an idealized estimate... rather than as a forward model of the SH0ES distance-ladder analysis.' This idealized mapping underlies the matching exercise.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18545 in / 16916 out tokens · 132481 ms · 2026-08-01T10:19:30.934417+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the effect of local cosmic voids on low-redshift measurements of the Hubble rate in flat $w_0w_a$CDM cosmologies. Using a hydrodynamical model for isolated spherical inverse top-hat underdensities, we compute the void-induced Hubble shift as a function of redshift, enclosed density contrast $\delta_{\rm E}$ and cosmological parameters. We find that the effect is mainly controlled by the matter sector, through $\delta_{\rm E}$ and $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$, while dynamical dark energy gives only subdominant late-time corrections. For a Planck-calibrated $\Lambda$CDM background, matching the SH0ES value requires a present-day void with $\delta_{\rm E}(z=0)\simeq -0.44$, substantially deeper than the KBC-like local underdensity. A KBC-like void lowers the SH0ES-Planck discrepancy to about $2\sigma$, but is not deep enough to fully reconcile the two measurements. Allowing for dynamical dark energy, including regions motivated by recent DES and DESI analyses, changes this result only at the percent level. We also show that the reported redshift dependence of locally inferred $H_0$ values can be represented phenomenologically by an effective enclosed matter profile. This reconstruction should be interpreted as a consistency test of local-structure effects rather than as explanation for an evolving background value of $H_0$. Overall, local underdensities can affect low-redshift Hubble-rate inferences, but they do not resolve the Hubble tension within the spherical void setup considered here.

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

48 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Breuval, A

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszyński, Astrophys. J.973, 30 (2024), arXiv:2404.08038 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys

    E. Di Valentinoet al.(CosmoVerse Network), Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101965 (2025), arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    W. L. Freedmanet al., Astrophys. J.882, 34 (2019), arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess, and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  8. [8]

    E. V. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 091301 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0208512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  9. [9]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02(02), 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2605.27221 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Efstathiou, Mon

    G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.538, 875 (2025), arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Zehavi, A

    I. Zehavi, A. G. Riess, R. P. Kirshner, and A. Dekel, Astrophys. J.503, 483 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9802252

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  13. [13]

    S. Jha, A. G. Riess, and R. P. Kirshner, Astrophys. J.659, 122 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612666

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    R. C. Keenan, A. J. Barger, and L. L. Cowie, Astrophys. J.775, 62 (2013), arXiv:1304.2884 [astro-ph.CO] . – 22 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    J. R. Whitbourn and T. Shanks, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.437, 2146 (2014), arXiv:1307.4405 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Böhringer, G

    H. Böhringer, G. Chon, and C. A. Collins, Astron. Astrophys.633, A19 (2020), arXiv:1907.12402 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Garcia-Bellido and T

    J. Garcia-Bellido and T. Haugboelle, JCAP04(04), 003, arXiv:0802.1523 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    February, J

    S. February, J. Larena, M. Smith, and C. Clarkson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.405, 2231 (2010), arXiv:0909.1479 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Valkenburg, V

    W. Valkenburg, V. Marra, and C. Clarkson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.438, L6 (2014), arXiv:1209.4078 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    Redlich, K

    M. Redlich, K. Bolejko, S. Meyer, G. F. Lewis, and M. Bartelmann, Astron. Astrophys.570, A63 (2014), arXiv:1408.1872 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Francis, Astrophys

    B. Francis, Astrophys. J. Lett.390, L61 (1992)

    1992

  22. [22]

    Van Acoleyen, JCAP10(10), 028, arXiv:0808.3554 [gr-qc]

    K. Van Acoleyen, JCAP10(10), 028, arXiv:0808.3554 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    B. L. Hoscheit and A. J. Barger, Astrophys. J.854, 46 (2018), arXiv:1801.01890 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Huterer and H.-Y

    D. Huterer and H.-Y. Wu, arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2309.05749 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Wu and D

    H.-Y. Wu and D. Huterer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 4946 (2017), arXiv:1706.09723 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Haslbauer, I

    M. Haslbauer, I. Banik, and P. Kroupa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499, 2845 (2020), arXiv:2009.11292 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Banik and V

    I. Banik and V. Kalaitzidis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.540, 545 (2025), arXiv:2501.17934 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Stiskalek, H

    R. Stiskalek, H. Desmond, and I. Banik, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.543, 1556 (2025), arXiv:2506.10518 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Cai, J.-F

    R.-G. Cai, J.-F. Ding, Z.-K. Guo, S.-J. Wang, and W.-W. Yu, Phys. Rev. D103, 123539 (2021), arXiv:2012.08292 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Wang, K.-P

    K. Wang, K.-P. Chen, and M. Le Delliou, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 859 (2023), arXiv:2304.13945 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    W. D. Kenworthy, D. Scolnic, and A. Riess, Astrophys. J.875, 145 (2019), arXiv:1901.08681 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Banik, H

    I. Banik, H. Desmond, V. Kalaitzidis, and S. Mazurenko, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2602.03928 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Mazurenko, I

    S. Mazurenko, I. Banik, and P. Kroupa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536, 3232 (2025), arXiv:2412.12245 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Moretti, G

    T. Moretti, G. Verza, N. Frusciante, and F. Pace, JCAP2026(02), 064, arXiv:2507.14120 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  35. [35]

    Moretti, N

    T. Moretti, N. Frusciante, G. Verza, and F. Pace, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2602.17644 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    X. D. Jia, J. P. Hu, and F. Y. Wang, Astron. Astrophys.674, A45 (2023), arXiv:2212.00238 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    X. D. Jia, J. P. Hu, S. X. Yi, and F. Y. Wang, Astrophys. J. Lett.979, L34 (2025), arXiv:2406.02019 [astro-ph.CO] . – 23 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Verza, A

    G. Verza, A. Pisani, C. Carbone, N. Hamaus, and L. Guzzo, JCAP12(12), 040, arXiv:1906.00409 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1906

  40. [40]

    A. E. Bayer, F. Villaescusa-Navarro, E. Massara, J. Liu, D. N. Spergel, L. Verde, B. D. Wandelt, M. Viel, and S. Ho, Astrophys. J.919, 24 (2021), arXiv:2102.05049 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Verza, C

    G. Verza, C. Carbone, A. Pisani, C. Porciani, and S. Matarrese, JCAP10(10), 079, arXiv:2401.14451 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    R. K. Sheth and R. van de Weygaert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.350, 517 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  43. [43]

    Moresco, Addressing the hubble tension with cosmic chronometers, inThe Hubble Constant Tension, edited by E

    M. Moresco, Addressing the hubble tension with cosmic chronometers, inThe Hubble Constant Tension, edited by E. Di Valentino and D. Brout (Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2024) pp. 277–293

    2024

  44. [44]

    Broutet al., Astrophys

    D. Broutet al., Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics558, A33 (2013), arXiv:1307.6212 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics558, A33 (2013), arXiv:1307.6212 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Collaboration, The Astronomical Journal156, 123 (2018), arXiv:1801.02634 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Collaboration, The Astronomical Journal156, 123 (2018), arXiv:1801.02634 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal935, 167 (2022), arXiv:2206.14220 [astro-ph.IM]

    A. Collaboration, The Astrophysical Journal935, 167 (2022), arXiv:2206.14220 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    L. R. Abramo, R. C. Batista, L. Liberato, and R. Rosenfeld, JCAP11(11), 012, arXiv:0707.2882 [astro-ph] . – 24 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv