Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Kinetic gravity braiding changes the gravitational potentials enough to leave percent-to-tens-of-percent imprints on light-cone probes, with ISW–RS and weak lensing the clearest signals.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 14:38 UTC pith:UED5JNLA

load-bearing objection Solid first light-cone maps of KGB gravity probes; the ~12% lensing boost and ISW–RS sign flip are real for the simulated point, with the main limit being a tiny EFT grid rather than any internal failure. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28207 v1 pith:UED5JNLA submitted 2026-07-30 gr-qc physics.comp-ph

Signatures of kinetic gravity braiding in cosmological probes of the gravitational field

Ahmad Nouri-Zonoz , Farbod Hassani , Julian Adamek , Emilio Bellini , Martin Kunz This is my paper
classification gr-qc physics.comp-ph
keywords kinetic gravity braidingk-essenceweak gravitational lensingISW-RS effectrelativistic N-bodylight-cone observablesHorndeskidark energy clustering
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 how kinetic gravity braiding—a derivative coupling between a dark-energy scalar field and the metric—shows up in observables built from light traveling across the universe. Using relativistic N-body light cones, the authors map weak lensing, Shapiro delay, the ISW–RS effect, and gravitational redshift, and compare them with pure k-essence and with linear theory. Braiding both boosts the amplitude of the gravitational potentials and slows their decay, so the projected signals differ from k-essence by a few percent up to tens of percent in a scale-dependent way. The ISW–RS spectrum is the most responsive: suppressed while linear decay dominates, then reversed once nonlinear Rees–Sciama evolution takes over. Weak lensing is a strong complementary probe, rising by about 10–12% at intermediate multipoles for the model they study. Linear theory works on the largest scales; reliable forecasts at smaller scales need the nonlinear light-cone calculation.

Core claim

For the representative KGB model they simulate, braiding enhances dark-energy clustering, raises the Weyl-potential amplitude, and slows its time evolution. That produces up to roughly 12% more weak-lensing convergence power than k-essence at multipoles around 100–1000, while the ISW–RS signal is suppressed by tens of percent in the linear regime and then overtakes k-essence once nonlinear evolution dominates—differences that linear Boltzmann codes miss at those scales.

What carries the argument

Past-light-cone outputs from the relativistic N-body code KGB-evolution, turned into full-sky maps and angular power spectra of the Weyl potential and its time derivative, then compared with the k-essence limit and with linear hi_class predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted percent-level shifts rest on a very small hand-chosen set of braiding and kineticity amplitudes and one fixed dark-energy background, so they are not shown to hold across the broader viable model space.

What would settle it

Measure the weak-lensing convergence spectrum and an ISW–RS auto- or cross-spectrum at multipoles from tens to about 1000 in a Stage-IV survey; if KGB-like braiding is present at the simulated strength, lensing should sit several to twelve percent above a matched k-essence prediction while ISW–RS should reverse from suppression to excess once the Rees–Sciama regime is reached.

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

If this is right

  • Weak lensing and ISW-sensitive measurements together can test the scale-dependent braiding signature in upcoming Stage-IV surveys.
  • Linear Boltzmann predictions are insufficient for ISW–RS (and only partly for convergence) at intermediate and small scales; N-body light-cone forecasts are required.
  • Kineticity does not control clustering the same way in KGB as in k-essence: raising it can suppress intermediate-scale signals once braiding is active.
  • Shapiro delay and gravitational redshift remain weaker few-percent probes and mainly complement the stronger lensing and ISW–RS channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Tomographic binning of the same light-cone maps would likely sharpen the redshift window where braiding’s late-time clustering is strongest and improve separation from ordinary sound-speed effects.
  • If other braiding strengths reverse the cancellation between the two leading pieces of the scalar density contrast, the ranking of which probe is most sensitive could flip—so a broader EFT grid is the natural next simulation campaign.
  • Cross-correlating convergence with ISW–RS, already shown here at modest multipoles, is a practical path for surveys that cannot measure the ISW auto-spectrum cleanly.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes past-light-cone signatures of kinetic gravity braiding (KGB) in relativistic probes of the gravitational field—weak-lensing convergence, Shapiro time delay, ISW–RS, and gravitational redshift—using the relativistic N-body code KGB-evolution. Full-sky and pencil-beam maps and angular power spectra are compared to the α_B=0 (k-essence) limit of the same pipeline and to linear hi_class predictions. For the representative point (α̂_K, α̂_B)=(3×10³, 0.4), braiding enhances C^κ_ℓ by up to ~10–12% at ℓ~10²–10³ relative to k-essence, while the ISW–RS spectrum is suppressed by tens of percent in the linear ISW regime and then overtakes k-essence once nonlinear Rees–Sciama evolution dominates. Linear theory is shown to suffice on large scales; nonlinear light-cone predictions are required at higher multipoles, especially for ISW–RS. Appendix B resolution tests support that KGB/k-essence ratios remain robust to ℓ~1000 even where absolute C_ℓ converge earlier.

Significance. The work supplies concrete, simulation-based percent-to-tens-of-percent forecasts for Stage-IV-relevant light-cone observables in a well-motivated Horndeski subclass, going beyond linear Boltzmann solvers. Strengths include: (i) a clear linear decomposition of δ_φ into competing k²π and ζ pieces that explains the reversed kineticity trend relative to k-essence (Sec. 2, Figs. 1–3); (ii) direct simulation-versus-hi_class comparisons on the same light cones (Figs. 6–11); (iii) documented resolution tests showing that the headline fractional differences are more stable than absolute spectra (App. B, Table 3); and (iv) open use of a publicly documented relativistic N-body pipeline. If the reported scale-dependent ranking of probes holds more broadly, weak lensing and ISW-sensitive cross-correlations become complementary tests of braiding for upcoming surveys.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1; Abstract; Section 6] Sec. 4 and Table 1: all quantitative claims rest on a two-by-two EFT grid—α̂_B∈{0,0.4}, α̂_K∈{3×10³,3×10⁶}, propto-omega time dependence, and a single CPL background (w0=−0.9, wa=0). The abstract and conclusion already qualify some statements as “for the model considered here,” but the ranking of probes (ISW–RS largest; lensing ~10–12%; Shapiro/redshift few percent) and the nonlinear overtake of ISW–RS are presented as characteristic of KGB. Because Sec. 2 shows that the net δ_φ is controlled by a cancellation between the k²π and ζ pieces whose balance depends on α̂_K and α̂_B, at least a brief additional run (or hi_class scan) at another braiding amplitude (e.g. α̂_B~1, already used in Fig. 3) or a different time dependence should be added, or the genericity language in the abstract/conclusion tightened so that the headline percentages are not read as model-independent.
  2. [Section 5 (ISW–RS); Appendix B, Table 3] Sec. 5 and App. B, Table 3: for ISW–RS the absolute C_ℓ meets the 2% resolution criterion only to ℓ~200, yet the text quotes a nonlinear KGB excess of order 10% by ℓ~10³ (and linear hi_class differences approaching ~50%). The ratio f_ℓ is stated to be converged to ℓ~1000, which justifies the fractional claim, but the manuscript should state explicitly in Sec. 5 (not only in the appendix) that the high-ℓ ISW–RS percentages are ratio-based and that absolute spectra in that regime remain resolution-limited. Without that caveat, readers may over-interpret the precise 10% figure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5] Fig. 5 histograms: the pixel PDFs for KGB vs k-essence largely overlap; a brief quantitative statement (e.g. variance or skewness ratio) in the caption or text would make the visual comparison more informative.
  2. [Section 3] Eq. (3.1) and Sec. 3: Doppler is correctly dropped as outside the paper’s scope, but a one-sentence pointer that velocity-dependent probes can also respond to braiding via the growth rate would help readers place the gravitational-potential-only selection.
  3. [Section 5, Pencil-beam light cone] Pencil-beam analysis (Fig. 11): NaMaster / pseudo-C_ℓ is mentioned; specify the apodisation or binning choices and whether the same mask correction is applied to the hi_class curves so that the comparison is fully like-for-like.
  4. Typos / notation: “FLR W” appears with a stray space (e.g. Sec. 2, Sec. 3); “hi class” is inconsistently spaced versus “hi_class”; arXiv number in the header is 2607.28207—ensure consistency with the submission record.
  5. [References; Introduction] References: the prior KGB-evolution code paper is cited as 2511.04676; once published, update. A short comparison sentence to existing relativistic light-cone lensing/ISW work in ΛCDM or other MG codes (beyond k-evolution) would help situate the novelty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: light-cone C_ℓ differences are computed from independent N-body runs and external linear theory, not forced by definition or fit.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are numerical: angular power spectra of weak lensing, Shapiro delay, ISW–RS, and gravitational redshift from KGB-evolution light cones, compared to the α_B=0 (k-essence) limit of the same pipeline and to hi_class linear theory. The percent-level deviations (e.g. ~12% lensing boost, ISW–RS suppression then nonlinear overtake) are measured outputs of those runs, not algebraic rearrangements of fitted inputs. Self-citations ([12–15], gevolution/k-evolution/KGB-evolution) supply the simulator and prior clustering results; they do not define the reported C_ℓ ratios. EFT parameters and the CPL background are chosen a priori (Sec. 4, Table 1), not tuned to recover the observables. Linear Limber/Born formulae (Sec. 3) are standard projections of P_{Φ+Ψ} and P_{(Φ+Ψ)'}, independently evaluated. Appendix B convergence tests check resolution of absolute spectra versus model ratios without closing a definitional loop. No uniqueness theorem, fitted-then-predicted quantity, or renamed empirical pattern carries the central claim. Scope limits on the EFT grid affect genericity, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central percent-level claims rest on standard GR-plus-Horndeski perturbation theory, a small set of hand-chosen EFT amplitudes, Born/Limber light-cone projections, and the correctness of the KGB-evolution discretization. No new physical entity is postulated; free parameters are the usual dark-energy EFT knobs fixed by the authors rather than fit to data in this work.

free parameters (4)
  • α̂_B (braiding amplitude) = 0.4 (fiducial KGB)
    Fixed by hand to 0 or 0.4 under α_i=α̂_i Ω_DE; drives the entire KGB versus k-essence difference.
  • α̂_K (kineticity amplitude) = 3×10³ and 3×10⁶
    Hand-chosen grid {3×10³, 3×10⁶}; controls sound speed and the cancellation in δ_φ.
  • CPL (w0, wa) and background densities = w0=-0.90, wa=0
    Background expansion fixed to Table 1 (w0=−0.9, wa=0, Ω_cdm=0.2638, …); not varied.
  • lightcone covering / shell / pixel factors = as in Table 2 / run setup
    Numerical controls for shell thickness and HEALPix sampling (App. A); affect map noise and high-ℓ convergence.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Horndeski/KGB action L_DE=G2(ϕ,X)−G3(ϕ,X)□ϕ with second-order equations and EFT description via α_K, α_B only at linear level
    Sec. 2; standard but restricts to monotonic background scalar and the chosen operator set.
  • domain assumption Poisson-gauge metric truncated to scalar potentials relevant for the quoted observables; vector/tensor modes neglected in the maps
    Eq. (2.2) and observable definitions in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption Born approximation and unperturbed-path line-of-sight integrals for lensing, Shapiro, and ISW–RS
    Sec. 3.1–3.3; standard weak-field assumption that can bias small-scale lensing at the percent level.
  • domain assumption Limber approximation and neglect of unequal-time correlations when quoting analytic C_ℓ benchmarks
    Eqs. (3.17), (3.20), (3.25); used for hi_class comparison curves.
  • ad hoc to paper α_i(τ)=α̂_i Ω_DE(τ) (propto-omega) parametrisation
    Sec. 2 and 4; common but not required by the microphysical action—other time dependences could shift k_B and the spectra.
  • standard math Standard spherical-harmonic statistics and HEALPix/CIC resampling faithfully represent the continuum fields on the light cone
    App. A; usual numerical analysis assumptions, checked partly in App. B.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 35326 in / 3822 out tokens · 81414 ms · 2026-07-31T14:38:00.341947+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the observational signatures of kinetic gravity braiding (KGB) models in relativistic cosmological probes constructed along the past light cone. Using the relativistic $N$-body code KGB-evolution, we generate light-cone outputs and compute several observables that directly probe the gravitational field, including weak gravitational lensing convergence, Shapiro time delay, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe and Rees-Sciama (ISW-RS) effects, and gravitational redshift. Full-sky maps and angular power spectra of these quantities are constructed and compared with $k$-essence models and predictions from linear perturbation theory. We find that the derivative coupling between the scalar field and the metric modifies both the amplitude and the time evolution of the gravitational potentials, producing scale-dependent deviations ranging from a few percent to tens of percent. In particular, the ISW-RS signal exhibits the largest fractional response, as the slower decay of the Weyl potential suppresses the KGB signal in the ISW-dominated regime, whereas nonlinear evolution reverses this trend at higher multipoles, producing differences of tens of percent relative to $k$-essence. Weak gravitational lensing also provides a strong complementary probe and, for the model considered here, exhibits clear deviations from the $k$-essence prediction at small scales with enhancements up to $\sim 10$-$12\%$ at multipoles $\ell \sim 10^2$-$10^3$. Our results show that linear perturbation theory accurately describes the large-scale behaviour, while nonlinear effects become important at smaller scales, particularly for the ISW-RS signal and, more moderately, for the convergence, and must therefore be included for reliable theoretical predictions.

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

56 extracted references · 40 linked inside Pith

  1. [3]

    Akeson et al.,The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s, 2, 2019

    R. Akeson et al.,The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s, 2, 2019. [4]LSST Science, LSST Projectcollaboration, P.A. Abell et al.,LSST Science Book, Version 2.0, 12, 2009

    2019

  2. [5]

    Horndeski,Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,Int

    G.W. Horndeski,Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,Int. J. Theor. Phys.10(1974) 363

    1974

  3. [6]

    Zumalac´ arregui, E

    M. Zumalac´ arregui, E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, J. Lesgourgues and P.G. Ferreira,hi class: Horndeski in the Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System,JCAP08(2017) 019 [1605.06102]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [7]

    Bellini, I

    E. Bellini, I. Sawicki and M. Zumalac´ arregui,hi class: Background Evolution, Initial Conditions and Approximation Schemes,JCAP02(2020) 008 [1909.01828]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [8]

    B. Hu, M. Raveri, N. Frusciante and A. Silvestri,Effective Field Theory of Cosmic Acceleration: an implementation in CAMB,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 103530 [1312.5742]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [9]

    Armendariz-Picon, V.F

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V.F. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhardt,A Dynamical solution to the problem of a small cosmological constant and late time cosmic acceleration,Phys. Rev. Lett.85 (2000) 4438 [astro-ph/0004134]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  7. [10]

    Adamek, D

    J. Adamek, D. Daverio, R. Durrer and M. Kunz,General relativity and cosmic structure formation,Nature Phys.12(2016) 346 [1509.01699]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [11]

    Adamek, D

    J. Adamek, D. Daverio, R. Durrer and M. Kunz,gevolution: a cosmological N-body code based on General Relativity,JCAP07(2016) 053 [1604.06065]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [12]

    Hassani, J

    F. Hassani, J. Adamek, M. Kunz and F. Vernizzi,k-evolution: a relativistic N-body code for clustering dark energy,JCAP12(2019) 011 [1910.01104]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [13]

    Hassani, B

    F. Hassani, B. L’Huillier, A. Shafieloo, M. Kunz and J. Adamek,Parametrising non-linear dark energy perturbations,JCAP04(2020) 039 [1910.01105]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [14]

    Deffayet, O

    C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki and A. Vikman,Imperfect Dark Energy from Kinetic Gravity Braiding,JCAP10(2010) 026 [1008.0048]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  12. [15]

    Nouri-Zonoz, F

    A. Nouri-Zonoz, F. Hassani, E. Bellini and M. Kunz,KGB-evolution: a relativisticN-body code for kinetic gravity braiding models,2511.04676

    arXiv

  13. [16]

    Bellini and I

    E. Bellini and I. Sawicki,Maximal freedom at minimum cost: linear large-scale structure in general modifications of gravity,JCAP07(2014) 050 [1404.3713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [17]

    Sawicki, I.D

    I. Sawicki, I.D. Saltas, L. Amendola and M. Kunz,Consistent perturbations in an imperfect fluid,JCAP01(2013) 004 [1208.4855]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [18]

    Hassani, J

    F. Hassani, J. Adamek and M. Kunz,Clustering dark energy imprints on cosmological observables of the gravitational field,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.500(2020) 4514 [2007.04968]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [19]

    Challinor and A

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis,Linear power spectrum of observed source number counts,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 043516

    2011

  17. [20]

    Bonvin and R

    C. Bonvin and R. Durrer,What galaxy surveys really measure,Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 063505

    2011

  18. [21]

    Yoo, A.L

    J. Yoo, A.L. Fitzpatrick and M. Zaldarriaga,New perspective on galaxy clustering as a cosmological probe: General relativistic effects,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 083514

    2009

  19. [22]

    Breton, Y

    M.-A. Breton, Y. Rasera, A. Taruya, O. Lacombe and S. Saga,Imprints of relativistic effects on the asymmetry of the halo cross-correlation function: from linear to non-linear scales, – 35 – Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society483(2018) 2671 [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/483/2/2671/27201436/sty3206.pdf]

    2018

  20. [23]

    Adamek, Y

    J. Adamek, Y. Rasera, P.S. Corasaniti and J.-M. Alimi,Ray tracing the integrated sachs-wolfe effect through the light cones of the dark energy universe simulation-full universe runs,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 023512

    2020

  21. [24]

    Bartelmann and P

    M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider,Weak gravitational lensing,Phys. Rept.340(2001) 291 [astro-ph/9912508]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  22. [25]

    Lepori, J

    F. Lepori, J. Adamek, R. Durrer, C. Clarkson and L. Coates,Weak-lensing observables in relativistic N-body simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497(2020) 2078 [2002.04024]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [26]

    M. Magi, F. Lepori and J. Adamek,Perturbative and numerical study of nonlinear relativistic effects in weak lensing,2603.24179

    arXiv

  24. [27]

    Mandelbaum,Weak gravitational lensing for precision cosmology,Ann

    R. Mandelbaum,Weak gravitational lensing for precision cosmology,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.56(2018) 393 [1710.03235]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [28]

    Alsing, A

    J. Alsing, A. Heavens, A.H. Jaffe, A. Kiessling, B. Wandelt and T. Hoffmann,Hierarchical Cosmic Shear Power Spectrum Inference,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.455(2016) 4452 [1505.07840]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [29]

    van Waerbeke et al.,Detection of correlated galaxy ellipticities on CFHT data: First evidence for gravitational lensing by large scale structures,Astron

    L. van Waerbeke et al.,Detection of correlated galaxy ellipticities on CFHT data: First evidence for gravitational lensing by large scale structures,Astron. Astrophys.358(2000) 30 [astro-ph/0002500]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [30]

    Schmidt, A

    F. Schmidt, A. Leauthaud, R. Massey, J. Rhodes, M.R. George, A.M. Koekemoer et al.,A detection of weak-lensing magnification using galaxy sizes and magnitudes,The Astrophysical Journal Letters744(2011) L22

    2011

  28. [31]

    Jain and A

    B. Jain and A. Taylor,Cross-correlation tomography: Measuring dark energy evolution with weak lensing,Phys. Rev. Lett.91(2003) 141302

    2003

  29. [32]

    Amendola, M

    L. Amendola, M. Kunz and D. Sapone,Measuring the dark side (with weak lensing),JCAP04 (2008) 013 [0704.2421]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  30. [33]

    Hannestad, H

    S. Hannestad, H. Tu and Y.Y.Y. Wong,Measuring neutrino masses and dark energy with weak lensing tomography,JCAP06(2006) 025 [astro-ph/0603019]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  31. [34]

    Spurio Mancini, R

    A. Spurio Mancini, R. Reischke, V. Pettorino, B.M. Sch¨ afer and M. Zumalac´ arregui,Testing (modified) gravity with 3D and tomographic cosmic shear,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.480 (2018) 3725 [1801.04251]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [35]

    K¨ ohlinger et al.,KiDS-450: The tomographic weak lensing power spectrum and constraints on cosmological parameters,Mon

    F. K¨ ohlinger et al.,KiDS-450: The tomographic weak lensing power spectrum and constraints on cosmological parameters,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471(2017) 4412 [1706.02892]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [36]

    Becker,CALCLENS: Weak Lensing Simulations for Large-area Sky Surveys and Second-order Effects in Cosmic Shear Power Spectra,1210.3069

    M.R. Becker,CALCLENS: Weak Lensing Simulations for Large-area Sky Surveys and Second-order Effects in Cosmic Shear Power Spectra,1210.3069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [37]

    Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field

    D.N. Limber,The Analysis of Counts of the Extragalactic Nebulae in Terms of a Fluctuating Density Field. II.,ApJ119(1954) 655

    1954

  35. [38]

    Shapiro,Fourth test of general relativity,Phys

    I.I. Shapiro,Fourth test of general relativity,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 789

    1964

  36. [39]

    Hu and A

    W. Hu and A. Cooray,Gravitational time delay effects on cosmic microwave background anisotropies,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 023504 [astro-ph/0008001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  37. [40]

    P. Li, S. Dodelson and W. Hu,Distortions in the Surface of Last Scattering,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 043502 [1905.03923]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [41]

    Sachs and A.M

    R.K. Sachs and A.M. Wolfe,Perturbations of a cosmological model and angular variations of the microwave background,Astrophys. J.147(1967) 73. – 36 –

    1967

  39. [42]

    Rees and D.W

    M.J. Rees and D.W. Sciama,Large scale Density Inhomogeneities in the Universe,Nature217 (1968) 511

    1968

  40. [43]

    Y.-C. Cai, S. Cole, A. Jenkins and C.S. Frenk,Full-sky map of the ISW and Rees-Sciama effect from Gpc simulations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.407(2010) 201 [1003.0974]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  41. [44]

    Adamek, Y

    J. Adamek, Y. Rasera, P.S. Corasaniti and J.-M. Alimi,Ray tracing the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect through the light cones of the Dark Energy Universe Simulation – Full Universe Runs, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 023512 [1910.03340]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [45]

    Cabass, M

    G. Cabass, M. Gerbino, E. Giusarma, A. Melchiorri, L. Pagano and L. Salvati,Constraints on the early and late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effects from the Planck 2015 cosmic microwave background anisotropies in the angular power spectra,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 063534 [1507.07586]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [46]

    Khosravi, A

    S. Khosravi, A. Mollazadeh and S. Baghram,ISW-galaxy cross correlation: a probe of dark energy clustering and distribution of dark matter tracers,JCAP09(2016) 003 [1510.01720]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [47]

    R. Beck, I. Csabai, G. R´ acz and I. Szapudi,The integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect in the AvERA cosmology,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.479(2018) 3582 [1801.08566]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [48]

    Cappi,Gravitational redshift in galaxy clusters.,Astronomy and Astrophysics301(1995) 6

    A. Cappi,Gravitational redshift in galaxy clusters.,Astronomy and Astrophysics301(1995) 6

    1995

  46. [49]

    Wojtak, S.H

    R. Wojtak, S.H. Hansen and J. Hjorth,Gravitational redshift of galaxies in clusters as predicted by general relativity,Nature477(2011) 567 [1109.6571]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  47. [50]

    Sadeh, L.L

    I. Sadeh, L.L. Feng and O. Lahav,Gravitational Redshift of Galaxies in Clusters from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey,Phys. Rev. Lett.114 (2015) 071103 [1410.5262]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [51]

    Jimeno, T

    P. Jimeno, T. Broadhurst, J. Coupon, K. Umetsu and R. Lazkoz,Comparing gravitational redshifts of SDSS galaxy clusters with the magnified redshift enhancement of background BOSS galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.448(2015) 1999 [1410.6050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [52]

    H. Zhu, S. Alam, R.A.C. Croft, S. Ho, E. Giusarma, A. Leauthaud et al.,Gravitational redshift profiles of MaNGA BCGs,1901.05616

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  50. [53]

    S. Alam, H. Zhu, R.A.C. Croft, S. Ho, E. Giusarma and D.P. Schneider,Relativistic distortions in the large-scale clustering of SDSS-III BOSS CMASS galaxies,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 470(2017) 2822 [1709.07855]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [54]

    S. Saga, A. Taruya, M.-A. Breton and Y. Rasera,Detectability of the gravitational redshift effect from the asymmetric galaxy clustering,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511(2022) 2732 [2109.06012]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [55]

    Sobral-Blanco and C

    D. Sobral-Blanco and C. Bonvin,Measuring the distortion of time with relativistic effects in large-scale structure,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.519(2023) L39 [2205.02567]. [56]Euclidcollaboration,Euclid: Relativistic effects in the dipole of the 2-point correlation function,2410.06268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [57]

    Dam and C

    L. Dam and C. Bonvin,Gravitational redshift from large-scale structure: nonlinearities, anti-symmetries, and the dipole,2506.22431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [58]

    Adamek and Ø

    J. Adamek and Ø. Christiansen,gevolution 2.0: GPU-accelerated relativistic N-body simulations for cosmology,2607.17929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [59]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10(2001) 213 [gr-qc/0009008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  56. [60]

    Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Phys

    E.V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]. [61]LSST Dark Energy Sciencecollaboration,A unified pseudo-C ℓ framework,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.484(2019) 4127 [1809.09603]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003