Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Anisotropic expansion imprints a scale-splitting signature on gravitational lensing that survives normalization.

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 06:53 UTC pith:ALYYAKTM

load-bearing objection Worth engaging: the directional scale vs critical-curve distinction is real, but fix the reversed integration limits before archival. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21720 v1 pith:ALYYAKTM submitted 2026-07-23 gr-qc

Gravitational Lensing in a Kasner Background: Distinguishing Wormholes and Black Holes

Celio R. Muniz , Jonathan A. Rebou\c{c}as , M. B. Cruz , R. M. P. Neves This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C1083C5783F05 PACS 04.20.-q04.70.Bw98.62.Sb
keywords gravitational lensingBianchi-I cosmologyKasner spacetimethin-lens approximationJacobi mapswormholesSchwarzschild black holecritical curves
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.

This paper asks whether gravitational lensing by a compact object can reveal anisotropy of the cosmological background rather than just the local lens geometry. It shows that in a Kasner (anisotropic Bianchi-I) spacetime, the characteristic lensing scale along two perpendicular directions splits in a way that depends on the full observer–lens–source propagation and, after normalization, is independent of the lens's mass or throat size. It also shows that the exact critical curves remain nearly circular despite this splitting, so scale-splitting and critical-curve morphology are complementary diagnostics. This provides a framework for disentangling cosmological anisotropy from the local geometry of a black hole or wormhole lens.

Core claim

Using the Ellis–Bronnikov wormhole and the Schwarzschild black hole as lenses in a Kasner background, the paper derives an anisotropic thin-lens equation in which scalar distances are replaced by direction-dependent Jacobi maps. The axis-aligned characteristic lensing scales θE,i depend on the complete source–lens–observer optical propagation and, when normalized, cancel the overall lens scale. The exact critical curves, however, are governed by a crossed dependence: the intercept along one axis is controlled by the lens response in the transverse direction, so the curves stay close to circular even when the one-dimensional scales are appreciably split. Because the wormhole's b−2 deflection

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the diagonal directional Jacobi map for a null ray aligned with a principal axis of the Bianchi-I spacetime. For each transverse direction i, the map D(i)a→c = ai(tc) ai(ta) / az(ta) ∫ az(t)/ai²(t) dt converts a physical angular deviation into a physical transverse separation through the anisotropic background. These maps replace scalar angular-diameter distances in the thin-lens equation βi = θi − (D(i)LS / D(i)S) α̂i(ξ), and their crossed appearance in the critical-curve intercepts produces the weak deformation of the critical curves.

Load-bearing premise

The compact object is treated as a localized weak-field perturbation whose flat-space deflection law is simply combined with the anisotropic background propagation, with no exact global solution matching the lens into the Kasner spacetime.

What would settle it

A numerical ray-tracing calculation in an exact metric that joins a Schwarzschild or Ellis–Bronnikov lens to a Kasner exterior could check whether the weak-field deflection law is altered by the anisotropic embedding. Observationally, measuring both the normalized characteristic-scale splitting and the critical-curve axial ratio for the same lens system would either confirm or contradict the predicted complementarity.

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

If this is right

  • The normalized directional splitting of characteristic lensing scales becomes a geometric probe of anisotropic expansion that is independent of the compact object's overall scale.
  • Critical-curve size, axial deformation, and scale-splitting can be treated as complementary rather than interchangeable diagnostics of anisotropic optical propagation.
  • The same anisotropic background is filtered differently by wormhole and black-hole deflection laws, offering a route to lens discrimination.
  • The formalism extends immediately to any diagonal Bianchi-I cosmology once the directional Jacobi maps are known, analytically or numerically.
  • The isotropic FLRW limit and the standard wormhole and black-hole Einstein-radius scalings are recovered consistently.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to apply the same lens-equation construction to realistic Bianchi-I spacetimes with time-dependent anisotropy, where the directional Jacobi maps must be integrated numerically and the scale-splitting signal can be quantified for cosmologically allowed shear amplitudes.
  • One could test the complementarity claim by ray-tracing in an exact compact-object-plus-Kasner solution (if one can be constructed) to see whether the flat-space deflection law is modified by the embedding; disagreement would mean the paper's quantitative results change.
  • Observationally, a lens system with a confidently measured Einstein-ring shape and a separately measured directional scale-split would provide a direct check of the predicted crossed-critical-curve relation versus the one-dimensional splitting.
  • The large Kasner anisotropies used here are deliberately amplified; rescaling to observationally allowed shear would likely produce small but potentially detectable splittings for near-aligned sources.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a thin-lens formalism for compact objects embedded in a diagonal Bianchi-I cosmology and specializes it to Kasner. Directional Jacobi maps for a line of sight along a principal axis are used in the lens equation, with the Ellis–Bronnikov wormhole and the Schwarzschild black hole as local lenses. The authors derive axis-aligned characteristic angular scales, define a scale-independent directional-splitting observable, and compute exact critical curves and axial ratios for three Kasner configurations. They conclude that the directional splitting probes the integrated anisotropic propagation while the critical-curve morphology is only weakly deformed and filters the two deflection laws differently. The work is explicitly presented as a controlled proof of principle rather than a realistic late-time cosmological model.

Significance. If the quantitative formulas are correct, the paper supplies a useful analytic framework and a clear proof-of-concept for separating cosmological anisotropy from local lens geometry. Strengths include exact closed-form Jacobi maps, a non-trivial consistency check through recovery of the isotropic Einstein-radius scalings (Eqs. 37–38), and a normalized splitting observable that is deliberately independent of the overall lens mass/throat scale. The comparison of two different deflection laws in a fixed anisotropic background is a worthwhile addition to the lensing literature. The main concerns are an algebraic error in a central displayed formula and the need to state more precisely the regime of validity of the thin-lens superposition.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (49)] The displayed formula for θ_WH_E,i is algebraically inconsistent with Eq. (47) and Eqs. (22)–(24). Substituting D_LS, D_S, and D_L gives θ^3 = (π r0^2/4) [q_i^2/(t0^2 a_i(t_L) a_z(t_L))] (L^{q_i}-S^{q_i})/[(1-S^{q_i})(1-L^{q_i})^2], not the inverse prefactor t0^2/q_i^2 a_i a_z shown. As written, the expression has incorrect dimensions and redshift dependence, and its isotropic limit does not reduce to Eq. (37). Since Eq. (50) and Figure 1 are built on this quantity, the derivation and the plotted normalized scales must be corrected and the numerical curves recomputed or re-verified.
  2. [Sec. I p.3 and Sec. III] The central quantitative claim depends on superposing the isolated flat-space deflection laws (25),(27) onto the Kasner background Jacobi maps without an exact global solution. The assumption is stated but not quantified. If the background tidal field or the matching to the compact object adds direction-dependent corrections to the effective deflection law, the claimed clean separation of anisotropy and local lens geometry would change. Please provide an explicit validity estimate (e.g., the ratio of the lens compactness scale to the background curvature/expansion scale) or a leading-order estimate of such corrections; at minimum, mark the observables as leading-order in that ratio.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (15), (19)–(21), (A11)–(A14)] The displayed integration limits are reversed relative to the positive closed forms in Eqs. (17), (22)–(24), and (A17)–(A19). This appears to be a typographical issue rather than a break in the derivation, but it should be corrected consistently throughout the paper and appendix.
  2. [Eq. (40)] The notation "Q_i ≡ A D(i)_LS / D(i)_S D(i)_L" is ambiguous. From Eq. (34), the correct combination is A D_LS^{(i)} D_L^{(i)} / D_S^{(i)}. Please add parentheses or an explicit product to avoid confusion.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The statement that curves are "normalized by the appropriate isotropic reference value at ζ_L=0.05" should clarify that this is a constant normalization evaluated at that epoch, not a ratio that varies with ζ_L; otherwise the caption reads as if the reference itself is ζ_L-dependent.
  4. [Sec. V.A] The discussion of curve crossings between solid and dashed profiles would benefit from an explicit reminder that, because each lens model is normalized by its own matched reference, a crossing does not correspond to equality of the physical characteristic scales. The text already notes this in the Fig. 1 discussion, but stating it before the figure would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: all derived lensing quantities follow from the stated background Jacobi maps and published deflection laws; no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The directional Jacobi maps are derived from the diagonal Bianchi-I metric (Sec. II.B, Eqs. 12-24) rather than imported as fitted values, and the thin-lens equation (29) combines these maps with the standard published weak-field deflection laws (25) and (27). The axis-aligned characteristic scales (46)-(49) follow directly from the one-dimensional alignment condition of the anisotropic lens equation, and the normalized splitting (50) is an explicitly defined relative difference in which the lens amplitude cancels algebraically; this is a property of the definition, not a hidden fit to a target conclusion. The critical-curve intercepts (51)-(53) follow from the full determinant condition det A = 0, with the crossed dependence emerging from the Jacobian structure rather than being assumed. No parameter is fitted to reproduce Fig. 1 or Fig. 2; the 'matched isotropic reference' is a clearly stated comparison model sharing the same longitudinal exponent, not a fitted benchmark. The isotropic limits (37) and (38) recover the known Einstein radii as external consistency checks. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited Bianchi-I optical and wormhole-lensing results are external to the present authors. The only flagged internal issue is the reversed integration limits in the Jacobi-map definitions (Eqs. 15 and A11 versus the positive closed forms in Eqs. 17 and A17), which is a sign/limit typographical inconsistency and does not constitute a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GR background geometry, a thin-lens decomposition, known weak-field deflection laws, and hand-chosen benchmark parameters. No new particles, forces, or geometric entities are introduced. The most fragile input is the additive superposition of the anisotropic propagation and the local lens, since no exact embedding solution is provided.

free parameters (3)
  • Kasner exponent triple (px, py, pz) = (-1/3, 2/3, 2/3); (-2/7, 3/7, 6/7); (-2/7, 6/7, 3/7)
    Chosen by hand to amplify anisotropy and to test sensitivity to exponent assignment. Not fitted to data.
  • Lens scale (r0 or M) = r0 = 1 and 2M = 1 in the plotted figures
    Sets the absolute size of the critical curves; cancels from the normalized directional splitting. Chosen for visualization.
  • Lens and source redshifts = z_L ≈ 0.59, z_S ≈ 3.64 in Fig. 2; z_S = 3 with varying z_L in Fig. 1
    Benchmark configuration used for all numerical plots; the results depend on these redshifts.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Kasner metric is an exact vacuum Bianchi-I solution with scale factors (t/t0)^{p_i} and exponent constraints p_x+p_y+p_z=1, p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2=1.
    Section II.A introduces the background and uses the Kasner power law for all distance formulas.
  • domain assumption The thin-lens approximation holds: the lensing region is small compared with cosmological scales and deflection occurs at a single lens plane.
    Stated in Section III as the basis for combining local deflection with background Jacobi maps.
  • domain assumption The local deflection laws are the leading weak-field forms: α_WH = π r0^2/(4 b^2) and α_BH = 4M/b, with deflection radial in the lens plane.
    Equations (25)–(27) take these from the prior Ellis–Bronnikov and Schwarzschild lensing literature.
  • domain assumption The central null ray is aligned with the principal z-axis, so the Jacobi map is diagonal.
    Section II.B and Appendix A restrict to this axial configuration; the paper acknowledges non-axial lines of sight require the full Sachs system.
  • ad hoc to paper No exact global solution is needed; background propagation and local deflection can be superimposed additively.
    Section III states this explicitly. It is the main structural idealization of the construction.
  • ad hoc to paper The matched isotropic reference a_iso(t) = (t/t0)^{p_z} is an appropriate comparison model.
    Used in Figures 1 and 2 to normalize curves while preserving the longitudinal time–redshift relation; it is not the isotropic limit of Kasner.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16724 in / 17318 out tokens · 163814 ms · 2026-08-01T06:53:28.084525+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate gravitational lensing by compact objects embedded in anisotropic Bianchi-I cosmologies using directional Jacobi maps within the thin-lens approximation. The formalism is developed for a general diagonal Bianchi-I spacetime and specialized to the Kasner solution as an analytically tractable background. Using the Ellis--Bronnikov wormhole and the Schwarzschild black hole as representative lenses, we derive anisotropic lens equations, characteristic axis-aligned lensing scales, and the corresponding critical curves. We show that the directional splitting of the characteristic scales depends on the complete source--lens--observer optical propagation and provides a geometric probe of anisotropic expansion independent of the overall lens scale. By contrast, the exact critical curves exhibit a much weaker deformation, indicating that characteristic-scale splitting and critical-curve morphology probe distinct aspects of the lens mapping. The comparison between wormhole and black-hole lenses further reveals that identical anisotropic backgrounds are filtered differently by distinct weak-field deflection laws. These results provide a simple framework for disentangling cosmological anisotropy from the local geometry of compact lenses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21720 by Celio R. Muniz, Jonathan A. Rebou\c{c}as, M. B. Cruz, R. M. P. Neves.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Redshift evolution of the normalized characteristic axis-aligned lensing scales for the Ellis–Bronnikov wormhole and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Critical curves for the Ellis–Bronnikov wormhole and the Schwarzschild black hole in three Kasner configurations: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

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

52 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Einstein, Science84, 506 (1936)

    A. Einstein, Science84, 506 (1936)

    1936

  2. [2]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    Wambsganss, Living Reviews in Relativity1, 12 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9812021 [astro-ph]

    J. Wambsganss, Living Reviews in Relativity1, 12 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9812021 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Physics Reports340, 291 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/9912508 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    Perlick, Living Reviews in Relativity7, 9 (2004), arXiv:1010.3416 [gr-qc]

    V. Perlick, Living Reviews in Relativity7, 9 (2004), arXiv:1010.3416 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    A. O. Petters and M. C. Werner, General Relativity and Gravitation42, 2011 (2010), arXiv:0912.0490 [math-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    G. F. R. Ellis and M. A. H. MacCallum, Communications in Mathematical Physics12, 108 (1969)

    1969

  8. [8]

    K. C. Jacobs, The Astrophysical Journal153, 661 (1968)

    1968

  9. [9]

    Dynamical Systems in Cosmology,

    “Dynamical Systems in Cosmology,” (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    Kasner, American Journal of Mathematics43, 217 (1921)

    E. Kasner, American Journal of Mathematics43, 217 (1921)

    1921

  11. [11]

    V. A. Belinskii, I. M. Khalatnikov, and E. M. Lifshitz, Advances in Physics19, 525 (1970)

    1970

  12. [12]

    C. B. Collins and S. W. Hawking, The Astrophysical Journal180, 317 (1973)

    1973

  13. [13]

    Kristian and R

    J. Kristian and R. K. Sachs, The Astrophysical Journal143, 379 (1966)

    1966

  14. [14]

    P. T. Saunders, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society142, 213 (1969)

    1969

  15. [15]

    T.Schücker, A.Tilquin, andG.Valent,MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety444,2820(2014),arXiv:1405.6523 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Pontzen and A

    A. Pontzen and A. Challinor, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society380, 1387 (2007), arXiv:0706.2075 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Planck Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics594, A16 (2016), arXiv:1506.07135 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Saadeh, S

    D. Saadeh, S. M. Feeney, A. Pontzen, H. V. Peiris, and J. D. McEwen, Physical Review Letters117, 131302 (2016), arXiv:1605.07178 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    R. K. Sachs, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A264, 309 (1961)

    1961

  20. [20]

    Seitz, P

    C. Seitz, P. Schneider, and J. Ehlers, Classical and Quantum Gravity11, 2345 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9403056 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  21. [21]

    Fleury, C

    P. Fleury, C. Pitrou, and J.-P. Uzan, Physical Review D91, 043511 (2015), arXiv:1410.8473 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Fleury, F

    P. Fleury, F. Nugier, and G. Fanizza, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016, 008 (2016), arXiv:1602.04461 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Fleury, H

    P. Fleury, H. Dupuy, and J.-P. Uzan, Physical Review Letters111, 091302 (2013), arXiv:1304.7791 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    C. R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, Physical Review D72, 104006 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0511019 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  25. [25]

    C. R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, Physical Review D73, 044024 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0601053 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  26. [26]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

    1984

  27. [27]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, American Journal of Physics56, 395 (1988)

    1988

  28. [28]

    Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 1996)

    M. Visser,Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking(American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 1996)

    1996

  29. [29]

    Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions,

    “Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions,” (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    H. G. Ellis, Journal of Mathematical Physics14, 104 (1973)

    1973

  31. [31]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Acta Physica Polonica B4, 251 (1973)

    1973

  32. [32]

    J. G. Cramer, R. L. Forward, M. S. Morris, M. Visser, G. Benford, and G. A. Landis, Physical Review D51, 3117 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9409051 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  33. [33]

    K. K. Nandi, Y.-Z. Zhang, and A. V. Zakharov, Physical Review D74, 024020 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0602062 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [34]

    T. K. Dey and S. Sen, Modern Physics Letters A23, 953 (2008), arXiv:0806.4059 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    Bhattacharya and A

    A. Bhattacharya and A. A. Potapov, Modern Physics Letters A25, 2399 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Nakajima and H

    K. Nakajima and H. Asada, Physical Review D85, 107501 (2012), arXiv:1204.3710 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    T. Cai, Z. Wang, H. Huang, and M. Zhu, Physical Review D108, 023004 (2023), arXiv:2302.13704 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Abe, The Astrophysical Journal725, 787 (2010), arXiv:1009.6084 [astro-ph.CO]

    F. Abe, The Astrophysical Journal725, 787 (2010), arXiv:1009.6084 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  39. [39]

    Y. Toki, T. Kitamura, H. Asada, and F. Abe, The Astrophysical Journal740, 121 (2011), arXiv:1107.5374 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

    Tsukamoto, T

    N. Tsukamoto, T. Harada, and K. Yajima, Physical Review D86, 104062 (2012), arXiv:1207.0047 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Physical Review D62, 084003 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9904193 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  42. [42]

    Bozza, Physical Review D66, 103001 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0208075 [gr-qc]

    V. Bozza, Physical Review D66, 103001 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0208075 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  43. [43]

    Bozza, General Relativity and Gravitation42, 2269 (2010), arXiv:0911.2187 [gr-qc]

    V. Bozza, General Relativity and Gravitation42, 2269 (2010), arXiv:0911.2187 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Tsukamoto, Physical Review D94, 124001 (2016), arXiv:1607.07022 [gr-qc]

    N. Tsukamoto, Physical Review D94, 124001 (2016), arXiv:1607.07022 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Banerjee, S. Paul, and T. Sarkar, Physics Letters B789, 270 (2019), an erratum was published as Physics Letters B 791, 422 (2019), DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.028., arXiv:1811.08245 [gr-qc]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Banerjee, S. Paul, and T. Sarkar, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2019, 028 (2019), an erratum was published in JCAP 12 (2023) E01, DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/E01., arXiv:1905.06932 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    K. A. Bronnikov and K. A. Baleevskikh, Gravitation and Cosmology25, 44 (2019)

    2019

  48. [48]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), JCAP04, 012 (2025), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Cai and S.-J

    R.-G. Cai and S.-J. Wang, Res. Astron. Astrophys.26, 084011 (2026), arXiv:2606.20434 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Sylos Labini and M

    F. Sylos Labini and M. Galoppo, Nature655, 327 (2026)

    2026

  52. [52]

    Sawala, (2026), arXiv:2607.01172 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Sawala, (2026), arXiv:2607.01172 [astro-ph.CO]. Appendix A: Derivation of the directional Jacobi maps We derive here the directional Jacobi maps used in Sec. II.B for a central null ray propagating along the principalz direction of the diagonal Bianchi-I spacetime, ds2 =−dt 2 + ∑ i=x,y,z a2 i (t)(dxi)2.(A1) The eventa, at cosmic timeta, denotes the poi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026