Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Cosmic voids and the kinetic analysis. IV. Hubble tension and the cosmological constant

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a repulsive cosmological-constant term in the gravitational force makes the late Universe's local Hubble constant differ from the global value and simultaneously drives the deterministic formation of cosmic voids and…

desk verdict Genuine math in the Hammerstein/Puiseux analysis, but the headline claims about Hubble tension and Λ-scaled voids rest on a scaling radius that doesn't follow from the paper's own potential. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09598 v2 pith:4MMKH7Q5 submitted 2025-01-16 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

V.G. Gurzadyan , N.N. Fimin , V.M. Chechetkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO
keywords HubbletensioncosmologicalconstantVlasov-PoissonequationsHammersteinintegralequationcosmicvoidswebkineticstructureformationlocalflow
topics The Hubble Tension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Most cosmologists treat the Hubble tension as a conflict between two measurements of the same expansion rate. This paper argues instead that there are two genuinely different expansion rates: a local one, governed by the density of matter in a given region plus the repulsive effect of the cosmological constant, and a global one, governed by the Friedmann equations. The same repulsive term, put into the kinetic (Vlasov) equations that describe gravitating matter, turns the cosmic web into a deterministic consequence of the mathematics: the equations have branching solutions, and the two branches correspond to dense walls and empty voids. The scale of those voids is set by the cosmological constant, so the model connects the largest observed structure to the same constant that drives cosmic acceleration. A sympathetic reading of the paper is that the tension and the void-wall pattern are two faces of one mechanism, not two unrelated problems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the generalized Newtonian potential $\Phi_{\rm GN}(r) = -Gm/r - c^2\Lambda r^2/2$ inserted into the stationary Vlasov-Poisson equations, and the Hammerstein integral equation $U(x) = \lambda_\theta \int_\Omega K(|x-y|) \Psi(y,U(y))\, dy$ that results after a quasi-Maxwellian energy-substitution ansatz. Here $K = -1/|x-y|$ is the Newtonian kernel and $\Psi$ carries the exponential weight $\exp(-\alpha y^2 - U(y))$; the parameter $\lambda_\theta$ packages the particle density, kinetic temperature, and normalization. The argument's decisive step is the branching analysis: linearizing about a known solution $U_0$ gives a Fredholm operator with discrete spectrum and Bessel eigenfunctions $\varphi_{\ell,j,m} = J_{\ell+1/2}(\sqrt{\lambda}\,r)Y_{\ell m}$, and when the Fredholm solvability condition fails, the only continuation is a Puiseux series in half-integer powers of the parameter deviation. That branch structure is what produces walls and voids simultaneously, while the cosmological constant enters both the branching parameter and the claimed scaling radius $r_c = (Gm/(3\Lambda c^2))^{1/3}$ for the semi-periodic structures.

What would settle it

One decisive check is algebraic: differentiating the paper's potential $\Phi_{\rm GN}(r) = -Gm/r - c^2\Lambda r^2/2$ gives a maximum at $r = (Gm/(c^2\Lambda))^{1/3}$, not at the stated $r_c = (Gm/(3\Lambda c^2))^{1/3}$, so recomputing this factor settles whether the predicted void scale is the claimed one. A second check is observational: using Eq. (2) with the measured mean density inside a void should give a local $H_0$ that differs from the global Planck value by the tension's size; if local and global values agree within errors, the two-flow explanation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the weak-field gravitational force $F = -GMm/r^2 + \Lambda c^2 mr/3$, obtained from the theorem that only this force keeps the exterior field of a sphere equivalent to a point mass, changes cosmic structure formation in two linked ways. In the kinetic description, the stationary Vlasov-Poisson system with this force reduces to a Hammerstein integral equation for the gravitational potential. The paper shows that near the characteristic values of the linearized Newtonian kernel the solutions of this equation branch: an analytic family continues the basic solution, while a Puiseux series in half-integer powers generates the non-holomorphic branch. It identifies the analytic branch with ordinary density variations and the non-holomorphic branch with walls, so that voids and walls are not stochastic fluctuations but deterministic consequences of the self-consistent field. For the expansion rate, the force law gives the local Hubble equation $H_0^2 = 8\pi G\rho_0/3 + \Lambda c^2/3$, in which $\rho_0$ is the local mean density, so the locally measured Hubble constant is expected to differ from the global Friedmann value; this difference is the paper's explanation of the Hubble tension.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism depends on a definite physical value for the mass scale $m$ in the scaling radius, which the paper neither fixes from data nor derives consistently from the potential it writes down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hubble tension becomes a prediction: local distance-ladder measurements and global CMB-based measurements probe different flows, so their disagreement is expected rather than anomalous.
  • The cosmic web is deterministic at late times: void-wall structure is generated by self-consistent kinetic solutions, not by the statistics of primordial fluctuations.
  • The cosmological constant acquires an observational scale: void sizes and wall spacings in a given region should track the same $\Lambda$ that drives cosmic acceleration, connecting void surveys to dark energy.
  • The model supplies a late-time successor to the pancake epoch, so structure-formation predictions split into an early stochastic stage and a later kinetic self-consistent stage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension, not in the paper: the deterministic branch mechanism implies that void-wall spacing statistics should show a preferred scale set by $\Lambda$ and local density, so void catalogs can be used as a direct test of the scaling radius.
  • Extension: rerunning the same Hammerstein analysis with the attractive Newtonian potential alone ($\Lambda=0$) should remove the Puiseux branch; demonstrating this would isolate the cosmological term as the cause of voids rather than a mathematical option.
  • Extension: the factor-of-three discrepancy between the stated $r_c$ and the potential's actual maximum means the qualitative two-branch picture may survive even if the numerical scale used for the Virgo and Laniakea fits has to be revised.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The paper's central claim is that the weak-field gravitational force $F = -GMm/r^2 + \Lambda c^2 mr/3$, obtained from the theorem that only this force keeps the exterior field of a sphere equivalent to a point mass, changes cosmic structure formation in two linked ways. In the kinetic description, the stationary Vlasov-Poisson system with this force reduces to a Hammerstein integral equation for t

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a Vlasov–Poisson kinetic description with a cosmological-constant-modified gravitational potential, Eq. (1), to two late-Universe problems: the Hubble tension and the formation of cosmic voids and walls. It claims that the repulsive cosmological term produces two distinct flows with different Hubble parameters, thereby resolving the Hubble tension, and that branching solutions of a Hammerstein integral equation for the gravitational potential generate stationary semi-periodic void-wall structures whose scale is set by the cosmological constant. The manuscript reduces the stationary Vlasov–Poisson system to a Hammerstein equation, studies holomorphic and Puiseux-type solution branches near eigenvalues of the linearized Newtonian operator, and concludes that the resulting structures are deterministic and that the cosmological constant acts as a scaling constant. The presentation is formal and relies heavily on the authors' earlier papers for the physical interpretation.

Significance. If the claims were established, the paper would offer a deterministic late-time structure-formation mechanism complementing the Zeldovich pancake picture and an environment-dependent explanation of the Hubble tension with a potentially falsifiable void scale. The manuscript contains a nontrivial functional-analytic construction: the reduction to a Hammerstein equation, the Fredholm linearization, and the attempt to prove convergence of Puiseux branches are concrete mathematical steps that go beyond a purely phenomenological statement. However, as it stands, the central physical predictions are not secured: the quoted scaling radius is not a consequence of the stated potential, the mass scale entering that radius is free, and the claimed comparisons with observational flows are not performed here. The significance of the paper therefore depends on corrections that are not local to the presentation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, definition of Φ_GN] The quoted maximum radius rc=(Gm/(3Λc^2))^{1/3} does not follow from the stated potential Φ_GN(r)=-Gm/r - (1/2)c^2Λ r^2. Setting dΦ_GN/dr=0 gives r^3=Gm/(c^2Λ), i.e. rc=(Gm/(c^2Λ))^{1/3}; using instead the force law in Eq. (1), with coefficient Λc^2m r/3, gives rc=(3GM/(Λc^2))^{1/3} after restoring the central mass M. Since this rc is the quantity through which the cosmological constant is claimed to set the void scale and to fit the Virgo and Laniakea flows in Section 4, the numerical scale used in the conclusions is not a consequence of the equations written in the paper.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 4] The mass m appearing in rc is set to unity in the kinetic model, and no independent determination of m is provided in the manuscript. The cited fits to the Virgo and Laniakea flows can at most constrain a combination of m and Λ, so the conclusion that the cosmological constant alone sets the scale of the void-wall structures is underdetermined. Moreover, no observational fit is actually carried out in this paper; the comparisons with data are referred to previous works, so the central scaling claim is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (28)] The expression for E1 is circular: since ζ1=E1φ1, the denominator ∫ λ1ω2ζ1^3 dy equals E1^3∫ λ1ω2φ1^3 dy, so E1 appears on both sides of Eq. (28) and the formula does not determine E1 as claimed. This is not a purely cosmetic issue, because E1 is used to construct the Puiseux branch ζ and hence the two non-holomorphic solutions in Eq. (36). The existence of those branches is therefore not established by the argument as written.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (2)] The claimed solution of the Hubble tension is not derived in this manuscript. Eq. (2) is a formal Friedmann-type relation with a free local density ρ0; no value of ρ0, no estimate of the resulting local H0, and no quantitative comparison with measured local and global Hubble parameters is given. The two-flow interpretation is referred to earlier papers, so the abstract's central claim that the potential with the cosmological-constant term 'provides a solution to the Hubble tension' is not supported by the present analysis.
  5. [Section 3, Eqs. (19)-(20) and following paragraphs] The eigenvalues λℓ,j displayed in Eq. (19) are the Newtonian-Laplacian eigenvalues and contain no explicit dependence on Λ. The paper does not show how the Λ-dependent weight exp(-αy^2-U0(y)) modifies the spectrum of the linearized Hammerstein operator, nor does it provide a quantitative map from the Bessel eigenfunctions to the density contrast of walls and voids. The statement that the scale of the semi-periodic structures corresponds to the cosmological constant is therefore an interpretation imposed on the solutions rather than a consequence of the spectral analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout, e.g. Section 1 and Section 3] There are several typographical and grammatical errors that impede reading, for example 'we analysed the of quasi-static processes' and 'the structure of the of solutions'; these should be corrected in a revision.
  2. [Section 1, around Eq. (1)] The sentence referring to 'the second term in the left-hand side' is inaccurate because Eq. (1) is displayed as a single right-hand-side expression; the intended reference is to the cosmological term in the force.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (37)] The physical rewriting in Eq. (37) uses notation C‡_1 that is not defined in the text, and the placement of the factor U0(x) outside the sum makes the expression difficult to interpret.
  4. [Section 3, final paragraph] The sentence 'Incidentally, the change in the kinetic temperature at the zero-point transition can lead to a dipole-type structures involving a repeller' is cryptic and not connected to any equation or observational prediction; it should either be expanded or removed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The void-wall scale rc is a fitted input (free mass m), the Hubble-tension 'solution' is a relabeling of the Friedmann equation, and the claimed Lambda-scaling agreement rests on a self-citation loop.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Conclusions]
    "In particular, this approach, in which the scaling radius rc = (Gm/(3Λ c^2))^{1/3} defined the role of the cosmological constant term in Eq.(1), enabled us to fit the dynamics of the galactic flow in the vicinity of the Virgo supercluster or the Laniakea supercluster, for instance (Gurzadyan and Stepanian 2021a,b)."

    Lambda-scaling is not derived from the Hammerstein equation; it is imported via rc, which depends on the free mass m (set to unity in Sec. 2 and never calibrated). The quoted sentence admits rc 'enabled us to fit' the Virgo/Laniakea flows, so the empirical support for Lambda as the void scale is a fit, not a prediction. The scale also does not follow from the paper's own potential Phi_GN = -Gm/r - (1/2)c^2Lambda r^2, whose stationary point is (Gm/(c^2Lambda))^{1/3}; the quoted rc=(Gm/(3Lambda c^2))^{1/3} is an input assumption.

  2. self definitional [Section 1, Eq. (2)]
    "Then, the late Hubble flow is described by the equation (Gurzadyan and Stepanian 2021a,b) H_0^2 = 8πGρ0/3 + Λ c^2/3, (2) where H0 is the local Hubble parameter, and ρ0 is the local mean density of matter. This equation follows from Eq. (1) and has the structure of the standard Friedmann equation, but it has a different content within the non-relativistic McCrea-Milne model with a cosmological constant."

    The advertised 'solution to the Hubble tension' is that the local H0 differs from the global value. But Eq. (2) is the standard Friedmann relation with ρ0 merely renamed 'local mean density'; no independent value of ρ0 is derived from the Vlasov/Hammerstein calculation in this paper. The difference between local and global H0 therefore follows by construction from the assumption that the input density is local, not from the kinetic analysis. The sentence 'has the structure of the standard Friedmann equation, but ... different content' is a re-labeling, and it is also cited to prior same-author papers rather than obtained here.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, Solutions and cosmological consequences]
    "The scaling of the semi-periodic structures corresponds to the scale of the involved constant, that is, the cosmological constant in agreement with observational data (Gurzadyan, Fimin, Chechetkin 2023a,b)."

    This sentence is the paper's direct empirical warrant for the central claim that Lambda fixes the void-wall scale. It cites only the authors' own previous papers (2023a,b); no void/filament scale data are analyzed in this text. Together with Sec. 4, where rc is used to fit galactic flows, the cited 'agreement' is a self-referential loop: the prior papers use the same rc and the same free mass m, and the present paper gives no independent data or parameter-free derivation to break the chain.

full rationale

The paper contains a substantial amount of legitimate functional analysis: the reduction of the stationary Vlasov-Poisson system to a Hammerstein equation and the construction of Puiseux-series solutions near characteristic values are mathematical arguments that are not circular in themselves. The circularity enters when the paper converts those results into physical claims about voids, walls, and the Hubble tension. The claimed void-wall scale rc is not an output of the Hammerstein analysis; it is taken from the maximum of the input potential Phi_GN = -Gm/r - (1/2)c^2Lambda r^2, depends on a mass m that the paper sets to unity and never calibrates, and is then used to fit Virgo/Laniakea flows in Section 4. Calling that fit the 'role of the cosmological constant' makes the Lambda-scaling prediction equivalent to a fitted input. Similarly, the Hubble-tension 'solution' is Eq. (2), which is the standard Friedmann equation with the density relabeled as local; the conclusion that H0 differs is a restatement of the assumption that the local density differs, not a derived result. Finally, the key sentence that the void-wall scaling is 'in agreement with observational data' cites only the authors' own prior papers, and those prior papers are the same ones invoked for the fitted flows. Together these steps reduce the central claims to an input potential, a free mass parameter, and a self-citation chain, rather than to a first-principles derivation or an independent empirical test. Score 6 is appropriate because the branching-solution mathematics is independent content, but the physical predictions advertised as the paper's main results are not independently established from that mathematics.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the modified Newton force law (Eq. 1) taken from earlier work, the Maxwell-Boltzmann ansatz for the Vlasov equilibrium, boundary conditions on a spherical domain, and a set of standard integral-equation theorems. The most consequential free inputs are the mass m appearing in the claimed scaling radius and the domain radius R_Omega, neither of which is fixed by independent data.

free parameters (5)
  • mass scale m = not specified (set to m=1 in Section 2)
    The scaling radius rc for voids and walls is proportional to m^{1/3}; m is never fixed by observations in this paper, and the conclusion uses rc to fit galactic-flow data.
  • domain radius R_Omega = not specified
    The eigenvalues of the linearized kernel scale as R_Omega^{-2} (Eq. 19), so the spatial periodicity of the solutions depends on the arbitrarily chosen spherical domain size.
  • kinetic temperature theta = not specified (sign considered)
    theta is the separation constant in Eq. (7); the analysis allows both signs but assigns no value, and the sign is tied to the interpretation of anti-gravity.
  • density normalization A and particle number N = not specified
    These appear in lambda_dagger and lambda_theta; no values are fixed, and they affect the characteristic values at which solution branches appear.
  • velocity cutoff v_max = not specified
    The integral J(theta) in Section 2 is cut off at v_max; the cutoff is not defined and changes the temperature integrals.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Existence and compactness theorems for Hammerstein integral equations and the Fredholm alternative
    Used throughout Section 3 to assert solutions and branching; quoted from Zabreiko et al. 1975 and Krasnosel'sky 1964 without proof.
  • standard math Lyapunov-Schmidt reduction and the implicit function theorem justify the Puiseux series construction
    Used to prove convergence of the half-integer power series near branch points in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The modified gravitational force law Eq.(1), including the repulsive cosmological term, is the correct effective non-relativistic law
    Foundational input from the Gurzadyan 1985 theorem; not derived in this paper but all subsequent equations rely on it.
  • domain assumption The stationary Vlasov equation admits the energy substitution F=f(epsilon) with a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and a single kinetic temperature theta
    Invoked around Eqs.(6)-(8); assumes collisionless quasi-equilibrium and adiabatic processes, which are not justified for the late Universe.
  • domain assumption Dirichlet boundary conditions on a spherical region follow from McCrea-Milne averaging
    Used to construct the Green function and Hammerstein equation in Section 2; the boundary term B3 enters the potential.
  • ad hoc to paper Oscillating Bessel eigenfunctions of the linearized operator correspond to physical walls and voids of the cosmic web
    The physical identification is asserted in Section 3 without quantitative comparison to void surveys.
  • ad hoc to paper Negative kinetic temperature is caused by the anti-gravity effect of the cosmological term
    Used to extend the branching analysis to theta<0; no independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic voids and the kinetic analysis. IV. Hubble tension and the cosmological constant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4MMKH7Q5

@misc{pith2026250109598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic voids and the kinetic analysis. IV. Hubble tension and the cosmological constant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4MMKH7Q5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09598}
}
read the original abstract

The formation of the cosmic structures in the late Universe is considered using Vlasov kinetic approach. The crucial point is the use of the gravitational potential with repulsive term of the cosmological constant which provides a solution to the Hubble tension, that is the Hubble parameter for the late Universe has to differ from its global cosmological value. This also provides a mechanism of formation of stationary semi-periodic gravitating structures of voids and walls, so that the cosmological constant has a role of the scaling and hence can be compared with the observational data for given regions. The considered mechanism of the structure formation in late cosmological epoch then is succeeding the epoch described by the evolution of primordial density fluctuations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    et al, 2024a, arXiv:2404.03000

    Adame A.G. et al, 2024a, arXiv:2404.03000

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    et al, 2024b, arXiv:2404.03001

    Adame A.G. et al, 2024b, arXiv:2404.03001

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    et al, 2024c, arXiv:2404.03002

    Adame A.G. et al, 2024c, arXiv:2404.03002

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Akhmedov K,T., 1957, Uspekhi Mat.Nauk, 12, 135

    work page 1957

  5. [5]

    Petrovskij seminar, 8, 21

    Arnold V.I., 1982, Comm. Petrovskij seminar, 8, 21

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    Astrophys

    Arnold V.I., Shandarin S.F., Zeldovich Ya.B., 1982, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dynamics, 20, 111

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    and Capozziello S., 2022, Eur

    Bajardi, F., D’Agostino, R., Benetti, M., De Falco V. and Capozziello S., 2022, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 1239

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Bateman H., Erdelyi A., 1955, Higher Transcendental Functions, V.3 , McGraw-Hill Book Company, (New York -- Toronto -- London)

    work page 1955

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Brezis H., Merle F., 1991, Comm. Part. Diff. Eqs., 16, 1223

    1991

  2. [10]

    Bouchè F., Capozziello S., Salzano V., Umetsu K., 2022, Eur. Phys. J. C, 82, 652

    2022

  3. [11]

    Capozziello, S., Lambiase, G., 2022, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 735

    2022

  4. [12]

    Dark Universe, 42, 101346

    Capozziello, S., D’Agostino R., 2023, Phys. Dark Universe, 42, 101346

    2023

  5. [13]

    Capozziello S., Sarracino G., De Somma G., 2024, Universe, 10, 140

    2024

  6. [14]

    Corduneanu C., 1991, Integral Equations and Applications , (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge--N.Y.--Port Chester--Melbourne--Sydney)

    1991

  7. [15]

    et al, 2023, arXiv:2301.10572

    Dainotti M. et al, 2023, arXiv:2301.10572

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Deimling K., 2010, Nonlinear Functional Analysis , (Dover Publications, Inc., New York)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Di Valentino E., et al, 2021 Class. Quant. Grav., 38, 153001

    2021

  10. [18]

    Dupaigne L., 2011, Stable solutions of elliptic partial differential equations , Boca Raton (FL): Chapman & Hall/CRC

    2011

  11. [19]

    Fimin N.N., Chechetkin V.M., 2020, The Physical Foundations of Hydrodynamic Processes: Macroscopic and Kinetic Approaches , World Scientific

    2020

  12. [20]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Ozernoi L.M., 1981, A&A, 95, 39

    1981

  13. [21]

    Gurzadyan V.G., 1985, Observatory, 105, 42

    1985

  14. [22]

    Gurzadyan V.G., 2019, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 134, 14

    2019

  15. [23]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Stepanian A., 2018, Eur. Phys. J. C, 78, 632

    2018

  16. [24]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Stepanian A., 2019, Eur. Phys. J. C, 79, 169

    2019

  17. [25]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Stepanian A., 2020, Eur. Phys. J. C, 80, 24

    2020

  18. [26]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Stepanian A., 2021a, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136, 235

  19. [27]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Stepanian A., 2021b, A&A, 653, A145

  20. [28]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Fimin N.N., Chechetkin V.M., 2022, A&A, 666, A149

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Fimin N.N., Chechetkin V.M., 2023a, A&A, 672, A95

  22. [30]

    Gurzadyan V.G., Fimin N.N., Chechetkin V.M., 2023b, A&A, 677, A161

  23. [31]

    and Savage L

    Hewitt E. and Savage L. J., 1955, Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 80, 470

    1955

  24. [32]

    and Bendong L., 1997, Nonlin

    Jingxian S. and Bendong L., 1997, Nonlin. Anal.Theor. Meth. Appl., 29, 1277

    1997

  25. [33]

    216, eds

    Kalmenov T.Sh., Suragan D., 2011, A Boundary Condition and Spectral Problems for the Newton Potential, in: Modern Aspects of the Theory of Partial Differential Equations (Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, V. 216, eds. M. Ruzhansky and J. Wirth, Birkhauser, p.187)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Keller H.B., Langford W.F., 1972, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. , 48, 83

    1972

  27. [35]

    Annalen, 86, 14

    Kellogg O.D., 1922, Math. Annalen, 86, 14

    1922

  28. [36]

    Kravtsov A.V., 2013, ApJ Lett, 764, L31

    2013

  29. [37]

    A., 1964, Topological Methods in the Theory of Nonlinear Integral Equations , (Macmillan Co.)

    Krasnosel'sky M. A., 1964, Topological Methods in the Theory of Nonlinear Integral Equations , (Macmillan Co.)

    1964

  30. [38]

    McCrea W.H., Milne E.A., 1934, Q. J. Math. 5, 73

    1934

  31. [39]

    Nowakowski M., 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 649

    2001

  32. [40]

    O'Regan D., Meehan M., 1998, Existence Theory for Nonlinear Integral and Integrodifferential Equations , Kluwer Academic Publishers

    1998

  33. [41]

    de Pedreira I., et al, 2024, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103525

    2024

  34. [42]

    Peebles P.J.E., 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology , Princeton University Press, Princeton

    1993

  35. [43]

    Equations, 46, 530

    Pokhozhaev S.I., 2010, Diff. Equations, 46, 530

    2010

  36. [44]

    Riess A.G., 2020, Nature Review Physics, 2, 10

    2020

  37. [45]

    et al, 2024a, ApJ, 962, 17

    Riess A.G. et al, 2024a, ApJ, 962, 17

  38. [46]

    et al, 2024b, ApJ, 977, 120

    Riess A.G. et al, 2024b, ApJ, 977, 120

  39. [47]

    London Math

    Ruston A.F., 1948, Proc. London Math. Soc., 2, 53

    1948

  40. [48]

    Said, K., et al., 2024, arXiv:2408.13842

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    et al, arXiv:2409.14546

    Scolnic D. et al, arXiv:2409.14546

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    et al, arXiv:2412.08449

    Scolnic D. et al, arXiv:2412.08449

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Shandarin S.F., Zeldovich Ya.B., 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61, 185

    1989

  44. [52]

    Sveshnikov A.G., Bogolyubov A.N., Kravtsov V.V., 2004, Lectures on Mathematical Physics , Moscow University Press (in Russian)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Titchmarsh E.C., 1957, Introduction to the Theory of Fourier Integrals , (Oxford University Press, Oxford)

    1957

  46. [54]

    Vedenyapin V., Sinitsyn A., Dulov E., 2011, Kinetic Boltzmann, Vlasov and Related Equations , Elsevier Insights

    2011

  47. [55]

    Vedenyapin V.V., Fimin N.N., Chechetkin V.M., 2021, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 136, 670

    2021

  48. [56]

    Vlasov A.A., 1961, Many Particle Theory and its Application to Plasma , Gordon and Breach

    1961

  49. [57]

    Vlasov A.A., 1978, Nonlocal Statistical Mechanics , Nauka, Moscow, (in Russian)

    1978

  50. [58]

    Zabreiko P.P., Koshelev A.I., Krasnoselsky M.A., Mikhlin S.G., Rakovshchik L.S., Stetsenko V.Ya., 1975, Integral Equations , (Noordhoff International Pub., Leyden, 443p.)

    1975

  51. [59]

    Zeldovich Ya.B., 1970, A&A, 5, 84

    1970

  52. [60]

    Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, Energoizdat, Moscow (in Russian)

    Zeldovich Ya.B., 1981, Non-relativistic cosmology, 181, Editor's appendix 1 to Russian edition of S. Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, Energoizdat, Moscow (in Russian)

    1981

  53. [61]

    Zemyan S.M., 2012, The Classical Theory of Integral Equations: A Concise Treatment, (Springer Science+Business Media)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Pipkin A.C., A Course of Integral Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991

    1991

  55. [63]

    aa.bst0000664000000000000000000007751012127017010010652 0ustar rootroot

  56. [64]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence a...

  57. [65]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.