Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 104 references

This paper establishes that freely decaying shear in a Bianchi type I universe produces a luminosity-distance quadrupole far too small to explain the Hubble tension: under a representative big-bang nucleosynthesis bound, the quadrupole ampl

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

2026-08-03 11:50 UTC pith:723QEQXF

load-bearing objection Sound, self-aware derivation of the low-redshift Bianchi I distance quadrupole; the shear-only conclusion is robust even though the headline bound is adopted from earlier work.

arxiv 2607.29197 v1 pith:723QEQXF submitted 2026-07-31 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

A Quantitative Framework for Testing the Hubble Tension in a Bianchi Type I Cosmological Background

Luigi Tedesco This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Jk
keywords Hubble tensionBianchi type Ianisotropic cosmologyluminosity-distance quadrupolecosmic shearbig-bang nucleosynthesisSachs-Jacobi mapcosmographic expansion
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 treats the Hubble tension as a consistency test of the assumption that cosmological data can be compressed into a single scalar expansion rate. It asks whether a homogeneous, anisotropically expanding Bianchi type I geometry — a universe with three different directional expansion rates — can hide or create part of the early-versus-late discrepancy in the Hubble constant. Its original contribution is a complete weak-shear, axisymmetric calculation that maps a specified shear history into the low-redshift quadrupole of luminosity distance, separating the direction-dependent redshift mapping from optical focusing. For freely decaying shear the quadrupole amplitude AD(z) is derived through order z^2. Under an adopted big-bang nucleosynthesis bound on the present shear density, the resulting distance-modulus quadrupole is below 2.4e-11 mag at z=0.15; producing a 1% directional effect would require a shear density about eighteen orders of magnitude larger. The conclusion is that the minimal shear-only model cannot resolve the Hubble tension, while the framework supplies a falsifiable programme for testing late-time anisotropy.

Core claim

For an axisymmetric Bianchi type I background with freely decaying shear and isotropic pressure, the fractional luminosity-distance quadrupole AD(z) is fully determined through relative order z^2 by the present directional expansion contrast BH0 and the background deceleration and jerk parameters: AD(z) = -BH0 + (2q0 - 1) BH0 z / 2 + (5 - q0 - 18q0^2 + 6j0) BH0 z^2 / 12 + O(z^3, BH0^2). The formula separates two physical contributions: the direction-dependent redshift–affine-parameter mapping, which dominates at low redshift, and the Jacobi-focusing term, which first enters at order z^2. In the minimal model the direct quadrupolar Ricci focusing vanishes, while isotropic Ricci focusing contr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is AD(z), the fractional luminosity-distance quadrupole, defined through DL(z,n) = DL^FLRW(z) [1 + AD(z) ((n·e)^2 - 1/3)], where e is a preferred axis. The paper computes it with a weak-shear, axisymmetric Kristian–Sachs expansion of the null-geodesic redshift map and the Sachs–Jacobi optical map about the observer, retaining terms through relative order z^2. The construction separates the redshift–affine-parameter contribution from the Jacobi-focusing contribution, and shows that for the minimal model the direct quadrupolar Ricci term vanishes while isotropic Ricci focusing appears through the direction-dependent normalization. The identity Omega_sigma0 = BH0^2/9 con

Load-bearing premise

The numerical conclusion rests on the adopted early-universe bound Omega_sigma0 <= 10^-23, taken from prior work rather than derived here; if that bound were too strong or did not apply to the minimal shear-only model, the predicted quadrupole could be far larger.

What would settle it

Fit an all-sky, BBN-consistent anisotropic model to supernova plus standard-siren data at z ~ 0.15 and search for a quadrupole with |A_mu| above 2.4e-11 mag whose axis is stable across probes. A detection of that size would require Omega_sigma0 well above the adopted BBN bound and would falsify the paper's central claim that freely decaying shear is observationally negligible; a null detection at that sensitivity would confirm the claim. A second falsifier is the z^2 coefficient of AD(z): measuring it to be inconsistent with (5 - q0 - 18q0^2 + 6j0) BH0 / 12 would invalidate the derived optical

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

If this is right

  • If the calculation is correct, any observed low-redshift distance quadrupole with amplitude above about 10^-11 mag cannot be produced by freely decaying homogeneous shear without violating BBN; it would indicate survey systematics, local structure, or a sustained source of anisotropic stress.
  • The identity Omega_sigma0 = BH0^2/9 converts early-universe bounds on shear density directly into bounds on directional distance measurements, so the model can be tested with supernovae, BAO, and standard sirens without adding free parameters.
  • A finite sky window causes quadrupole-to-monopole leakage: for a 60-degree polar-cap catalogue at z_eff=0.15, a one-percent scalar H0 shift would require Omega_sigma0 ~ 1.4e-4, still far above BBN, so even optimistic masks cannot make shear-only anisotropy mimic the Hubble tension.
  • The framework separates three meanings of H0 — the mean kinematic rate, the directional rate, and the scalar value fitted under an isotropic template — showing that these can differ once exact isotropy is relaxed, and that the difference is a measurable effect.
  • The derived redshift dependence of AD(z) is a sharp prediction: if future data find a quadrupole, comparing its z-profile with Eq. (73) distinguishes freely decaying shear from sourced late-time anisotropy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same shear-to-distance map could be inverted to place new low-redshift bounds on Omega_sigma0 from existing all-sky supernova catalogues; even a null result at the millimagnitude level would tighten early-universe constraints through a geometrically independent route.
  • Editorial extension: the polar-cap toy result implies that any future claim that anisotropy resolves the Hubble tension must specify the survey window function; otherwise a quadrupole can leak into the fitted monopole and mimic a shift in H0 without physical shear.
  • Editorial extension: if a future standard-siren catalogue finds a quadrupole axis consistent with supernovae but with a different redshift dependence, the natural reading under this paper's logic is anisotropic stress or residual systematics rather than minimal Bianchi I shear.
  • Editorial extension: the headline conclusion is gated by the adopted early-universe bound; if that bound were weakened by many orders of magnitude, the minimal shear-only model would become observationally relevant again, so the framework should be re-run whenever the bound is updated.

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bianchi type I framework for testing whether the Hubble tension is a failure of the scalar FLRW compression of distance data. After reviewing Bianchi I kinematics and null-geodesic propagation, it derives a weak-shear, axisymmetric luminosity-distance quadrupole A_D(z) to relative order z^2, explicitly separating the redshift--affine-parameter mapping from Jacobi focusing. The result is Eq. (73): A_D(z) = -B_H0 + (2q_0-1)/2 B_H0 z + (5-q_0-18q_0^2+6j_0)/12 B_H0 z^2 + O(z^3, B_H0^2). This is then propagated through an adopted BBN bound on the shear density, Omega_sigma0 <= 1e-23, to give |B_H0| <= 9.5e-12 and |A_mu(0.15)| <= 2.4e-11 mag, and through an analytic polar-cap window to compute quadrupole-to-monopole leakage into an isotropic H0 fit. Comparing with the shear density required for a 1% directional shift (Omega_sigma0 ~ 2.5e-5) and for the Planck 2018--SH0ES 2022 separation (Omega_sigma0 ~ 1.8e-3), the paper concludes that minimal freely decaying shear cannot resolve the tension. The paper is explicitly a framework with a worked low-redshift benchmark, not a claim of a new cosmological constraint or a full data analysis.

Significance. If the central derivation holds, the paper provides a useful, explicit map from a specified Bianchi I shear history to the low-redshift directional distance quadrupole, separating the redshift mapping from beam focusing in a way that is easy to check and to extend. The numerical hierarchy is internally consistent: the A_map and A_foc contributions sum to the quoted z^2 coefficient, the polar-cap average <Q>=(mu+mu^2)/3 and the resulting required Omega_sigma0 values reproduce Table 2, and the FLRW limit of the distance series is the standard expansion. The conclusion that minimal shear-only anisotropy is negligible for the Hubble tension is robust to the main caveat, because the required shear densities exceed the adopted BBN bound by roughly eighteen orders of magnitude. The paper also offers falsifiable templates and consistency tests for future SNe, BAO, and standard-siren analyses. Its main value is methodological; it does not claim to resolve the tension and is transparent about the external nature of the early-Universe bound.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (105)--(107) and Table 2] The quantitative limits inherit the BBN bound Omega_sigma0 <= 1e-23 from Ref. [25], which is co-authored by the present author and is not re-derived here. The manuscript discloses this, and the ~18-order gap in Table 2 means the qualitative conclusion is not at risk. Still, please add one sentence stating how much the adopted bound would need to be relaxed before the 1% directional benchmark becomes allowed (a factor of about 2.5e18), so the reader can assess sensitivity without recomputing.
  2. [Section 10, Eq. (197)] The concluding restatement of the main result is numbered as Eq. (197) although it is identical to Eq. (73). If it is meant as a restatement, cite Eq. (73) rather than assigning a new number; as written, a reader may mistakenly think there are two independent results.
  3. [Section 9/10] The sentence in the Conclusions that the result 'replaces the purely schematic use of A_D(z) in the original manuscript' references a previous manuscript version. For a standalone journal version, please remove or rephrase this self-referential note.
  4. [Sections 7--8] The likelihood strategy and diagnostic-test sections are largely programmatic and are not used in the quantitative claims of the paper. They are useful for framing, but the manuscript would be clearer if these sections were condensed and explicitly marked as a roadmap for future work rather than as results.
  5. [Data Availability] The paper states that the short numerical scripts are available upon request. Since the paper's quantitative claims are meant to be reproducible from the displayed equations, please consider posting the scripts in a public repository and citing them in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (73) is an analytic weak-shear derivation; the self-cited BBN bound is an explicitly adopted external constraint, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central analytical result, Eq. (73), is the weak-shear axisymmetric luminosity-distance quadrupole for freely decaying shear. Its coefficients follow from the null-geodesic redshift mapping (Eq. 42), the directional Kristian-Sachs expansion (Eqs. 60-65), and the free-decay condition delta-Hdot + 3H delta-H = 0; the series is parameter-free given q0 and j0 of the mean background, not fitted to data. The numerical limit |A_mu(0.15)| <= 2.4e-11 mag is a direct propagation of the adopted BBN bound Omega_sigma0 <= 1e-23 through Omega_sigma0 = B_H0^2/9 into Eq. (74). The paper explicitly states that this early-Universe bound is adopted from previous work and is not a new result of the present analysis. Thus the bound is an input constraint, honestly labeled, not a prediction derived from it. The cited Ref. [25] shares the present author, but the bound is external to this paper's derivation chain; moreover, the conclusion is robust to plausible changes in the bound because a 1% directional shift would require Omega_sigma0 ~ 2.5e-5, some eighteen orders of magnitude above the adopted bound. The z=0.15 use of the Kristian-Sachs expansion is explicitly delimited, and the polar-cap window is presented as an analytic toy, not a survey selection function. No step reduces by construction to its own input. The central derivation is self-contained apart from the externally adopted, clearly attributed early-Universe constraint.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analytic AD(z) formula is derived without fitting, but the quantitative limits use the Ωσ0 upper bound from Ref. [25] (same author group), a toy polar-cap geometry, and fixed flat-ΛCDM q0/j0 inputs. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • BH0
    Present dimensionless directional Hubble contrast ΔH_ax,0/H0; not fitted in this paper but the amplitude of the derived AD(z); sign unspecified; related to Ωσ0 by |BH0|=3√Ωσ0.
  • Ωσ0 = ≤10^-23 (adopted from Ref. [25])
    Present-day dimensionless shear density; adopted from prior work by the same author, not re-fitted here; drives all numerical limits.
  • polar-cap window μ_c = 0.5 (θ_c=60°)
    Toy catalogue selection function chosen for the leakage example; determines the leakage factor 0.25 in Eq. (111).
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Bianchi type I metric ds² = -dt² + Σ a_i²(t) dx_i² with comoving observers, vanishing vorticity and acceleration.
    §3 Eqs. (4)-(10); central background choice restricting to homogeneous anisotropic geometry.
  • domain assumption Freely decaying shear: σ_ij ∝ a^-3, i.e. no anisotropic stress (π_ij=0).
    §3 Eqs. (19)-(20); defines the minimal shear-only model used for Eq. (73) and BBN propagation.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric expansion a1=a2=a⊥, a3=a∥.
    §3 Eqs. (24)-(27); reduces the quadrupole to one parameter and is used in all numerical limits.
  • domain assumption Weak shear / first-order expansion in B_H; photon direction q_i(t) replaced by observed n_i; terms O(B_H²) dropped.
    §4.1 Eqs. (42)-(44), §4.3; central approximation yielding the linear-in-BH0 AD formula.
  • domain assumption Observer-centred Kristian–Sachs expansion of the Jacobi map, using the leading observer-side Ricci coefficient; cumulative Weyl shear neglected at this order.
    §4.2 Eqs. (49)-(51), §4.3; defines the z² truncation and its stated domain of validity.
  • domain assumption External BBN bound Ωσ0 ≲ 10^-23 from Ref. [25] (author-overlapping previous work).
    §5, Eq. (106); adopted, not derived; load-bearing for the numerical Aμ limit.
  • domain assumption Flat background closure Ωr0+Ωm0+ΩΛ0+Ωσ0=1 and fixed Ωm0=0.315, Ωr0=9×10^-5, yielding q0≈-0.527, j0≈1.
    §5 Eq. (74); needed for the numeric coefficients -1.027 and -0.544; taken from standard Planck-era values.
  • standard math Etherington reciprocity and geometric-optics / Sachs–Jacobi formalism.
    §4.2 Eqs. (45)-(48); standard general-relativistic result.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 46899 in / 21747 out tokens · 218940 ms · 2026-08-03T11:50:39.569176+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Hubble tension is usually formulated as a disagreement between two determinations of a single scalar parameter, $H_0$, within an isotropic FLRW model. We develop a quantitative framework treating the tension as a consistency test of the scalar FLRW compression of cosmological data in a homogeneous, anisotropically expanding Bianchi type I background. Beyond synthesizing established results on Bianchi I kinematics, null geodesics, and optical propagation, our original contribution is a worked weak-shear, axisymmetric calculation mapping a specified shear history into a low-redshift luminosity-distance quadrupole. The calculation explicitly separates the direction-dependent redshift--affine-parameter mapping from the Jacobi-focusing contribution, propagating the resulting distance quadrupole through an analytic polar-cap toy window. For freely decaying shear, we obtain $A_D(z) = -B_{H0} + (2q_0-1)B_{H0}z/2 + (5-q_0-18q_0^2+6j_0)B_{H0}z^2/12 + O(z^3, B_{H0}^2)$, where $B_{H0}=(H_{\parallel 0}-H_{\perp 0})/H_0$ and $j_0$ is the mean jerk parameter. A representative BBN limit, $\Omega_{\sigma 0} \le 10^{-23}$, implies $\vert{}B_{H0}\vert{} \le 9.5 \times 10^{-12}$ and a distance-modulus quadrupole below $2.4 \times 10^{-11}$ mag at $z=0.15$. The early-Universe bound used is adopted from prior work; the novelty lies in propagating it through the derived Sachs--Jacobi mapping into limits on the luminosity-distance quadrupole and catalogue-window bias. By contrast, a 1% directional shift requires $\Omega_{\sigma 0} \approx 2.5 \times 10^{-5}$, while matching the Planck 2018--SH0ES 2022 separation requires $\Omega_{\sigma 0} \approx 1.8 \times 10^{-3}$. Thus, the minimal shear-only model cannot resolve the tension, though the framework supplies a falsifiable programme for testing late-time anisotropy with SNe, BAO, and standard sirens.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29197 by Luigi Tedesco.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Reference scale of the Hubble tension. The two points show the Planck 2018 base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustrative quadrupolar distance-modulus residual generated by Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the fractional shear contribution Ωσ(z) for freely decaying Bianchi I shear, computed from Eq. (100). The curves use illustrative present-day values of Ωσ0 and a fiducial flat background. Even when the present-day shear is extremely small, the a −6 scaling makes it grow rapidly toward recombination and BBN, explaining why early-Universe constraints are so restrictive. A second aspect is the im… 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

104 extracted references · 82 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A class of homogeneous cosmological models,

    G. F. R. Ellis and M. A. H. MacCallum, “A class of homogeneous cosmological models,” Commun. Math. Phys.12, 108–141 (1969)

    1969

  2. [2]

    Cosmological models,

    G. F. R. Ellis and H. van Elst, “Cosmological models,” inTheoretical and Observational Cosmology, edited by M. Lachieze-Rey, NATO Science Series C541, 1–116 (1999), arXiv:gr- qc/9812046

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parame- ters,

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parame- ters,”Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020); Corrigendum:Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021), arXiv:1807.06209, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910; doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910e (corrigendum)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with1 km s−1 Mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,

    A. G. Riesset al., “A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with1 km s−1 Mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,” Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    JWST observations reject unrecognized crowding of Cepheid photometry as an explanation for the Hubble tension at8σ confidence,

    A. G. Riesset al., “JWST observations reject unrecognized crowding of Cepheid photometry as an explanation for the Hubble tension at8σ confidence,”Astrophys. J. Lett.962, L17 (2024), arXiv:2401.04773, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes,

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, A. J. Lee and K. A. Owens, “Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes,”Astrophys. J.985, 203 (2025); Erratum:Astrophys. J.993, 252 (2025), arXiv:2408.06153, doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/adce78; doi:10.3847/...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    The Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program: the JWST J-region asymptotic giant branch extra- galactic distance scale,

    A. J. Lee, W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, K. A. Owens and T. J. Hoyt, “The Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program: the JWST J-region asymptotic giant branch extra- galactic distance scale,”Astrophys. J.985, 182 (2025), arXiv:2408.03474, doi:10.3847/1538- 4357/adc8a1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    The Chicago Carnegie Hubble Program: improving the calibration of Type Ia supernovae with JWST measurements of the tip of the red giant branch,

    T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, K. A. Owens and A. J. Lee, “The Chicago Carnegie Hubble Program: improving the calibration of Type Ia supernovae with JWST measurements of the tip of the red giant branch,”Astrophys. J.1002, 11 (2026), arXiv:2503.11769, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae29eb

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    The perfect host: JWST Cepheid observations in a background-free Type Ia supernova host confirm no bias in Hubble-constant measurements,

    A. G. Riess, S. Li, G. S. Anand, W. Yuan, L. Breuval, S. Casertano, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, Y. S. Murakami, A. V. Filippenko and T. G. Brink, “The perfect host: JWST Cepheid observations in a background-free Type Ia supernova host confirm no bias in Hubble-constant measurements,”Astrophys. J. Lett.992, L34 (2025), arXiv:2509.01667, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    The complete sample of available SNe Ia luminosity calibrations from the TRGB observed with either HST or JWST,

    S. Li, A. G. Riess, G. S. Anand, D. Scolnic, Y. S. Murakami, D. Brout and E. R. Peterson, “The complete sample of available SNe Ia luminosity calibrations from the TRGB observed with either HST or JWST,”Astrophys. J.997, 115 (2026), arXiv:2504.08921, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    The Hubble tension in our own backyard: DESI and the nearness of the Coma cluster,

    D. Scolnic, A. G. Riess, Y. S. Murakami, E. R. Peterson, D. Brout, M. Acevedo, B. Carreres, D. O. Jones, K. Said, C. Howlett and G. S. Anand, “The Hubble tension in our own backyard: DESI and the nearness of the Coma cluster,”Astrophys. J. Lett.979, L9 (2025), arXiv:2409.14546, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada0bd

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Tensions between the early and late Universe,

    L. Verde, T. Treu and A. G. Riess, “Tensions between the early and late Universe,”Nature Astron.3, 891–895 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Hubble constant hunter’s guide,

    L. Knox and M. Millea, “Hubble constant hunter’s guide,”Phys. Rev. D101, 043533 (2020), arXiv:1908.03663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    A buyer’s guide to the Hubble constant,

    P. Shah, P. Lemos and O. Lahav, “A buyer’s guide to the Hubble constant,”Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 9 (2021), arXiv:2109.01161

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    In the realm of the Hubble tension–a review of solutions,

    E. Di Valentinoet al., “In the realm of the Hubble tension–a review of solutions,”Class. Quantum Grav.38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Cosmology intertwined: a review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,

    E. Abdallaet al., “Cosmology intertwined: a review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,”J. High Energy Astrophys.34, 49–211 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Challenges to theΛCDM cosmology,

    G. Efstathiou, “Challenges to theΛCDM cosmology,”Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A383, 20240022 (2025), arXiv:2406.12106, doi:10.1098/rsta.2024.0022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Hubble tension: the evidence of new physics,

    J.-P. Hu and F.-Y. Wang, “Hubble tension: the evidence of new physics,”Universe9, 94 (2023), arXiv:2302.05709, doi:10.3390/universe9020094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Dissecting the Hubble tension: insights from a diverse set of sound-horizon-freeH0 measurements,

    I. Pantos and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Dissecting the Hubble tension: insights from a diverse set of sound-horizon-freeH0 measurements,” arXiv:2601.00650

    arXiv

  20. [20]

    Difficulties with late-time solutions for the Hubble tension,

    P. Bansal and D. Huterer, “Difficulties with late-time solutions for the Hubble tension,” Phys. Rev. D113, 103539 (2026), arXiv:2602.06293, doi:10.1103/ydnj-myzb

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Impact of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 for early dark energy and the Hubble tension,

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, R. Calderon and T. Simon, “Impact of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2 for early dark energy and the Hubble tension,”Phys. Rev. D113, 063519 (2026), arXiv:2505.08051, doi:10.1103/bx25-1g5d

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    What it takes to solve the Hubble tension through modifications of cosmological recombination II: in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2,

    N. Lee and T. Zhou, “What it takes to solve the Hubble tension through modifications of cosmological recombination II: in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2,” arXiv:2606.06495

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    The isotropy of the Universe,

    C. W. Misner, “The isotropy of the Universe,”Astrophys. J.151, 431–457 (1968)

    1968

  24. [24]

    Asymptotic behavior of homogeneous cosmological models in the presence of a positive cosmological constant,

    R. M. Wald, “Asymptotic behavior of homogeneous cosmological models in the presence of a positive cosmological constant,”Phys. Rev. D28, 2118–2120 (1983)

    1983

  25. [25]

    Constraints on a Bianchi type I spacetime extension of the standardΛCDM model,

    O. Akarsu, S. Kumar, S. Sharma and L. Tedesco, “Constraints on a Bianchi type I spacetime extension of the standardΛCDM model,”Phys. Rev. D100, 023532 (2019), arXiv:1905.06949, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023532

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Hubble diagrams in statistically homogeneous, anisotropic universes,

    T. Anton and T. Clifton, “Hubble diagrams in statistically homogeneous, anisotropic universes,”JCAP05, 120 (2024), arXiv:2402.16585, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/120. 54

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Hubble tension in an anisotropic Universe,

    M. Deliyergiyev, M. Le Delliou and A. Del Popolo, “Hubble tension in an anisotropic Universe,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.542, 3105–3124 (2025), arXiv:2510.19069, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1374

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Anisotropic generalization of theΛCDM Universe model with ap- plication to the Hubble tension,

    O. G. Gron, “Anisotropic generalization of theΛCDM Universe model with ap- plication to the Hubble tension,”Symmetry16, 564 (2024), arXiv:2406.09479, doi:10.3390/sym16050564

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Anisotropic universes in light of background cosmological observations,

    J. L. Palacios-Cordoba, J. B. Orjuela-Quintana, G. A. Valencia-Zuniga and C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo, “Anisotropic universes in light of background cosmological observations,” Phys. Rev. D113, 043511 (2026), arXiv:2507.09351, doi:10.1103/kvvs-97ly

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Isotropy of Hubble expansion in the early and late Universe,

    A. J. Zhou, S. Dodelson and D. Scolnic, “Isotropy of Hubble expansion in the early and late Universe,”Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 261002 (2025), arXiv:2506.14878, doi:10.1103/w99g-lgnn

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Ellipsoidal Universe can solve the cosmic microwave background quadrupole problem,

    L. Campanelli, P. Cea and L. Tedesco, “Ellipsoidal Universe can solve the cosmic microwave background quadrupole problem,”Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 131302 (2006); Erratum:Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 209903 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0606266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  32. [32]

    Cosmic microwave background quadrupole and ellipsoidal universe,

    L. Campanelli, P. Cea and L. Tedesco, “Cosmic microwave background quadrupole and ellipsoidal universe,”Phys. Rev. D76, 063007 (2007), arXiv:0706.3802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.063007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    Ellipsoidal Universe induces large scale CMB polarization,

    P. Cea, “Ellipsoidal Universe induces large scale CMB polarization,” arXiv:astro- ph/0702293

    arXiv

  34. [34]

    On the large-scale cosmic microwave background polarization,

    P. Cea, “On the large-scale cosmic microwave background polarization,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.406, 586–589 (2010), arXiv:1001.2650, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16697.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [35]

    The ellipsoidal Universe in the Planck satellite era,

    P. Cea, “The ellipsoidal Universe in the Planck satellite era,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 441, 1646–1661 (2014), arXiv:1401.5627

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    The Ellipsoidal Universe and the Hubble tension,

    P. Cea, “The Ellipsoidal Universe and the Hubble tension,” arXiv:2201.04548

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters,

    T. Louiset al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope Collaboration], “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 power spectra, likelihoods andΛCDM parameters,”JCAP11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    The Atacama Cosmol- ogy Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models,

    E. Calabreseet al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope Collaboration], “The Atacama Cosmol- ogy Telescope: DR6 constraints on extended cosmological models,”JCAP11, 063 (2025), arXiv:2503.14454, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/11/063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: multi-probe cosmology with unWISE galaxies and ACT DR6 CMB lensing,

    G. S. Farrenet al., “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: multi-probe cosmology with unWISE galaxies and ACT DR6 CMB lensing,”Phys. Rev. D111, 083516 (2025), arXiv:2409.02109, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083516

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Towards constraining cosmological parameters with SPT-3G observations of 25% of the sky,

    A. Vitrieret al.[SPT-3G Collaboration], “Towards constraining cosmological parameters with SPT-3G observations of 25% of the sky,” arXiv:2510.24669

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    The Dark Energy Survey: cosmology results with ∼ 1500new high-redshift Type Ia supernovae using the full five-year dataset,

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.[DES Collaboration], “The Dark Energy Survey: cosmology results with ∼ 1500new high-redshift Type Ia supernovae using the full five-year dataset,” Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    The Dark Energy Survey supernova program: a reanalysis of cosmology results and evidence for evolving dark energy with an updated Type Iasupernovacalibration,

    B. Popovicet al.[DES Collaboration], “The Dark Energy Survey supernova program: a reanalysis of cosmology results and evidence for evolving dark energy with an updated Type Iasupernovacalibration,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.548, stag632(2026), arXiv:2511.07517, doi:10.1093/mnras/stag632. 55

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Union through UNITY: cosmology with 2000 SNe using a unified Bayesian framework,

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A. G. Kim, C. Lidman, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter, P. Ruiz-Lapuente and N. Suzuki, “Union through UNITY: cosmology with 2000 SNe using a unified Bayesian framework,”Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025), arXiv:2311.12098, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc0a5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  44. [44]

    Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies,

    D. J. Eisensteinet al., “Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies,”Astrophys. J.633, 560–574 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0501171

    arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,

    S. Alamet al.[eBOSS Collaboration], “Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory,”Phys. Rev. D103, 083533 (2021), arXiv:2007.08991

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,

    A. G. Adameet al.[DESI Collaboration], “DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations,”JCAP02, 021 (2025), arXiv:2404.03002, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI Collaboration], “DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints,”Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738, doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    DESI DR2 results. I. Baryon acoustic oscil- lations from the Lyman alpha forest,

    M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI Collaboration], “DESI DR2 results. I. Baryon acoustic oscil- lations from the Lyman alpha forest,”Phys. Rev. D112, 083514 (2025), arXiv:2503.14739, doi:10.1103/2wwn-xjm5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    The Hubble tension resolved by the DESI baryon acoustic oscillations measurements,

    X. D. Jia, J. P. Hu, D. H. Gao, S. X. Yi and F. Y. Wang, “The Hubble tension resolved by the DESI baryon acoustic oscillations measurements,”Astrophys. J. Lett.994, L22 (2025), arXiv:2509.17454, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1965

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Probing potential redshift-dependent systematics in the Hubble tension: model-independent H0 constraints from DESI R2,

    T. Liu, S. Cao and J. Wang, “Probing potential redshift-dependent systematics in the Hubble tension: model-independent H0 constraints from DESI R2,”Phys. Rev. D112, 123539 (2025), arXiv:2509.20898, doi:10.1103/3c2h-g7cz

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Updated cosmological constraints from 2D BAO measurements: a new compilation and comparison with DESI DR2,

    M. A. Sabogal, R. C. Nunes, F. Avila and A. Bernui, “Updated cosmological constraints from 2D BAO measurements: a new compilation and comparison with DESI DR2,”Eur. Phys. J. C86, 314 (2026), arXiv:2510.16141, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15557-8

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Cosmological constraints from a joint DESI DR1 Full-Shape and DR2 BAO,

    D. Forero-Sánchezet al.[DESI Collaboration], “Cosmological constraints from a joint DESI DR1 Full-Shape and DR2 BAO,”JCAP06, 043 (2026), arXiv:2602.18761, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/06/043

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    An anisotropic model for the Universe,

    M. Le Delliou, M. Deliyergiyev and A. del Popolo, “An anisotropic model for the Universe,” Symmetry12, 1741 (2020), doi:10.3390/sym12101741

    doi:10.3390/sym12101741 2020

  54. [54]

    Constraints on an anisotropic universe,

    M. P. Hertzberg and A. Loeb, “Constraints on an anisotropic universe,”Phys. Rev. D109, 083538 (2024), arXiv:2401.15782, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Constraining the locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi type I model with self-consistent recombination history and observables,

    B. H.-L. Ng and M.-C. Chu, “Constraining the locally rotationally symmetric Bianchi type I model with self-consistent recombination history and observables,”Phys. Rev. D112, 023553 (2025), arXiv:2503.14969, doi:10.1103/3njx-sy22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Bianchi type I model cannot explain the observed CMB angu- lar acoustic scale directional variation,

    B. H.-L. Ng and M.-C. Chu, “Bianchi type I model cannot explain the observed CMB angu- lar acoustic scale directional variation,”Phys. Rev. D112, 103545 (2025), arXiv:2508.05185, doi:10.1103/x58t-g2tx

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Anisotropic dark energy: dynamics of background and perturbations,

    T. S. Koivisto and D. F. Mota, “Anisotropic dark energy: dynamics of background and perturbations,”JCAP06, 018 (2008), arXiv:0801.3676. 56

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    Anisotropic cosmological constant and the CMB quadrupole anomaly,

    D. C. Rodrigues, “Anisotropic cosmological constant and the CMB quadrupole anomaly,” Phys. Rev. D77, 023534 (2008), arXiv:0708.1168

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    Probing dark energy anisotropy,

    S. A. Appleby and E. V. Linder, “Probing dark energy anisotropy,”Phys. Rev. D87, 023532 (2013), arXiv:1210.8221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    Anisotropic universe with anisotropic dark energy,

    A. Verma, P. K. Aluri and D. F. Mota, “Anisotropic universe with anisotropic dark energy,” Phys. Rev. D111, 083508 (2025), arXiv:2408.08740, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Ellipsoidal Universe and Cosmic Shear,

    L. Tedesco, “Ellipsoidal Universe and Cosmic Shear,”Universe10, 363 (2024), arXiv:2409.07509, doi:10.3390/universe10090363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Testing spatial curvature and anisotropic expansion on top of theΛCDM model,

    O. Akarsu, E. Di Valentino, S. Kumar, M. Ozyigit and S. Sharma, “Testing spatial curvature and anisotropic expansion on top of theΛCDM model,”Phys. Dark Univ.39, 101162 (2023), arXiv:2112.07807, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.101162

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    On the definition of distance in general relativity,

    I. M. H. Etherington, “On the definition of distance in general relativity,”Philos. Mag.15, 761–773 (1933)

    1933

  64. [64]

    Republication of: Relativistic cosmology,

    G. F. R. Ellis, “Republication of: Relativistic cosmology,”Gen. Relativ. Gravit.41, 581–660 (2009)

    2009

  65. [65]

    Observations in cosmology,

    J. Kristian and R. K. Sachs, “Observations in cosmology,”Astrophys. J.143, 379–399 (1966)

    1966

  66. [66]

    Gravitational waves in general relativity. VI. The outgoing radiation condi- tion,

    R. K. Sachs, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. VI. The outgoing radiation condi- tion,”Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A264, 309–338 (1961)

    1961

  67. [67]

    Geodesic-light-cone coordinates and the Bianchi I spacetime,

    P. Fleury, F. Nugier and G. Fanizza, “Geodesic-light-cone coordinates and the Bianchi I spacetime,”JCAP06, 008 (2016), arXiv:1602.04461, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    Light-cone averaging in cosmology: formalism and applications,

    M. Gasperini, G. Marozzi, F. Nugier and G. Veneziano, “Light-cone averaging in cosmology: formalism and applications,”JCAP07, 008 (2011), arXiv:1104.1167, doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/07/008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    An exact Jacobi map in the geodesic light-cone gauge,

    G. Fanizza, M. Gasperini, G. Marozzi and G. Veneziano, “An exact Jacobi map in the geodesic light-cone gauge,”JCAP11, 019 (2013), arXiv:1308.4935, doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2013/11/019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  70. [70]

    A new approach to the propaga- tion of light-like signals in perturbed cosmological backgrounds,

    G. Fanizza, M. Gasperini, G. Marozzi and G. Veneziano, “A new approach to the propaga- tion of light-like signals in perturbed cosmological backgrounds,”JCAP08, 020 (2015), arXiv:1506.02003, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/08/020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [71]

    Possibility of detecting anisotropic expansion of the Universe by very accurate astrometry measurements,

    C. Quercellini, M. Quartin and L. Amendola, “Possibility of detecting anisotropic expansion of the Universe by very accurate astrometry measurements,”Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 151302 (2009), arXiv:0809.3675

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [72]

    Can cosmic parallax distinguish between anisotropic cosmologies?

    M. Fontanini, M. Trodden and E. J. West, “Can cosmic parallax distinguish between anisotropic cosmologies?”Phys. Rev. D80, 123515 (2009), arXiv:0905.3727

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  73. [73]

    Cosmic parallax in ellipsoidal Universe,

    L. Campanelli, P. Cea, G. L. Fogli and L. Tedesco, “Cosmic parallax in ellipsoidal Universe,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A26, 1169–1181 (2011), arXiv:1103.6175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [74]

    Anisotropy of cosmic acceleration,

    W. Zhao, P. X. Wu and Y. Zhang, “Anisotropy of cosmic acceleration,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D22, 1350060 (2013), arXiv:1305.2701. 57

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  75. [75]

    Testing the isotropy of the Universe by using the JLA compilation of type-Ia supernovae,

    H.-N. Lin, S. Wang, Z. Chang and X. Li, “Testing the isotropy of the Universe by using the JLA compilation of type-Ia supernovae,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.456, 1881–1885 (2016), arXiv:1504.03428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  76. [76]

    Probing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration traced by Type Ia supernovae,

    B. Javanmardi, C. Porciani, P. Kroupa and J. Pflamm-Altenburg, “Probing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration traced by Type Ia supernovae,”Astrophys. J.810, 47 (2015), arXiv:1507.07560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [77]

    Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration,

    J. Colin, R. Mohayaee, M. Rameez and S. Sarkar, “Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration,”Astron. Astrophys.631, L13 (2019), arXiv:1808.04597

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Percent-level test of isotropic expansion using Type Ia supernovae,

    J. Soltis, A. Farahi, D. Huterer and C. M. Liberato, “Percent-level test of isotropic expansion using Type Ia supernovae,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 091301 (2019), arXiv:1902.07189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Determining the Hubble constant from gravitational wave observations,

    B. F. Schutz, “Determining the Hubble constant from gravitational wave observations,” Nature323, 310–311 (1986)

    1986

  80. [80]

    A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant,

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration], “A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant,”Nature551, 85–88 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.