Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 104 references

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

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 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

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

Luigi Tedesco This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Jk
keywords HubbletensionBianchitypeIanisotropiccosmologyluminosity-distancequadrupolecosmicshearbig-bangnucleosynthesisSachs-Jacobimapcosmographicexpansion
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

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.

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

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

Extended reading notes

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

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, 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 · score 1.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 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).
assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Quantitative Framework for Testing the Hubble Tension in a Bianchi Type I Cosmological Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/723QEQXF

@misc{pith2026260729197,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Quantitative Framework for Testing the Hubble Tension in a Bianchi Type I Cosmological Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/723QEQXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29197}
}
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 the authors.

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. Illustrative quadrupolar distance-modulus residual generated by Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
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 impact on th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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)

    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

    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

    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/...

    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

    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

    arXiv 2026

Show all 104 references
  1. [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 measuremen...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [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

    2026 arXiv

  3. [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...

    2025 arXiv

  4. [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

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hubble constant hunter’s guide,

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

    2020 arXiv

  6. [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

    2021 arXiv

  7. [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

    2021 arXiv

  8. [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

    2022 arXiv

  9. [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

    2025 arXiv

  10. [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

    2023 arXiv

  11. [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

  12. [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

    2026

  13. [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

    2026 arXiv

  14. [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

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    The isotropy of the Universe,

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

    1968

  16. [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

  17. [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

    2019 arXiv

  18. [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

    2024 arXiv

  19. [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

    2025

  20. [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

    2024 arXiv

  21. [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

    2026

  22. [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

    2025

  23. [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

    2006 arXiv

  24. [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

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ellipsoidal Universe induces large scale CMB polarization,

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

  26. [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

    2010 arXiv

  27. [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

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The Ellipsoidal Universe and the Hubble tension,

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

    arXiv

  29. [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

    2025 arXiv

  30. [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

    2025 arXiv

  31. [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

    2025 arXiv

  32. [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

    arXiv

  33. [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

    2024 arXiv

  34. [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...

    2026 arXiv

  35. [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:10.38...

    2025 arXiv

  36. [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

    2005

  37. [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

    2021 arXiv

  38. [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

    2024 arXiv

  39. [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

    2025 arXiv

  40. [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

    2025 arXiv

  41. [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

    2025

  42. [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

    2025

  43. [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

    2026

  44. [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

    2026

  45. [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

    2020 doi

  46. [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

    2024 arXiv

  47. [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

    2025 arXiv

  48. [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

    2025 arXiv

  49. [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

    2008 arXiv

  50. [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

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Probing dark energy anisotropy,

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

    2013 arXiv

  52. [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

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ellipsoidal Universe and Cosmic Shear,

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

    2024 arXiv

  54. [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

    2023 arXiv

  55. [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

  56. [64]

    Republication of: Relativistic cosmology,

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

    2009

  57. [65]

    Observations in cosmology,

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

    1966

  58. [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

  59. [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

    2016 arXiv

  60. [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

    2011 arXiv

  61. [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

    2013 arXiv

  62. [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

    2015 arXiv

  63. [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

    2009 arXiv

  64. [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

    2009 arXiv

  65. [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

    2011 arXiv

  66. [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

    2013 arXiv

  67. [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

    2016 arXiv

  68. [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

    2015 arXiv

  69. [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

    2019 arXiv

  70. [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

    2019 arXiv

  71. [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

  72. [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

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Probing cosmic anisotropy with gravitational waves as standard sirens,

    R.-G. Cai, T.-B. Liu, X.-W. Liu, S.-J. Wang and T. Yang, “Probing cosmic anisotropy with gravitational waves as standard sirens,”Phys. Rev. D97, 103005 (2018), arXiv:1712.00952

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Big-bang nucleosynthesis after Planck,

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T.-H. Yeh and C. Young, “Big-bang nucleosynthesis after Planck,” JCAP03, 010 (2020), arXiv:1912.01132

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Precision big bang nucleosynthesis with improved Helium-4 predictions,

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan and E. Vangioni, “Precision big bang nucleosynthesis with improved Helium-4 predictions,”Phys. Rep.754, 1–66 (2018), arXiv:1801.08023

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB,

    Y. Akramiet al.[Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB,”Astron. Astrophys.641, A7 (2020), arXiv:1906.02552

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle?

    P. K. Aluriet al., “Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle?” Class. Quantum Grav.40, 094001 (2023), arXiv:2207.05765

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Anisotropic distance ladder in Pantheon+ supernovae,

    R. McConville and E. Ó Colgáin, “Anisotropic distance ladder in Pantheon+ supernovae,” Phys. Rev. D108, 123533 (2023), arXiv:2304.02718, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123533

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data,

    F. Sorrenti, R. Durrer and M. Kunz, “The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data,”JCAP 11, 054 (2023), arXiv:2212.10328, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/054

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Potential signature of a quadrupolar Hubble expansion in Pantheon+ supernovae,

    J. A. Cowell, S. Dhawan and H. J. Macpherson, “Potential signature of a quadrupolar Hubble expansion in Pantheon+ supernovae,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.526, 1482–1494 (2023), arXiv:2212.13569, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2788

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Testing the cosmological principle with the Pantheon+ sample and the region-fitting method,

    J. P. Hu, Y. Y. Wang, J. Hu and F. Y. Wang, “Testing the cosmological principle with the Pantheon+ sample and the region-fitting method,”Astron. Astrophys.681, A88 (2024), arXiv:2310.11727, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347121

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Testing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration with the Pantheon+ and SH0ES datasets: a cosmographic analysis,

    C. A. P. Bengaly, C. Pigozzo and J. S. Alcaniz, “Testing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration with the Pantheon+ and SH0ES datasets: a cosmographic analysis,”Phys. Rev. D109, 123533 (2024), arXiv:2402.17741, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123533

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae,

    A. Sah, M. Rameez, S. Sarkar and C. G. Tsagas, “Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 596 (2025), arXiv:2411.10838, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14222-w. 58

    2025 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages,

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb, “Constraining cosmological parameters based on relative galaxy ages,”Astrophys. J.573, 37–42 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0106145

    2002 arXiv

  85. [93]

    A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter atz∼ 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,

    M. Morescoet al., “A 6% measurement of the Hubble parameter atz∼ 0.45: direct evidence of the epoch of cosmic re-acceleration,”JCAP05, 014 (2016), arXiv:1601.01701

    2016 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,

    M. Morescoet al., “Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosmological probes,”Living Rev. Relativ.25, 6 (2022), arXiv:2201.07241

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Testing anisotropic Hubble expansion,

    P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said and L. Staveley-Smith, “Testing anisotropic Hubble expansion,”JCAP03, 066 (2025), arXiv:2412.14607, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/066

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,

    R. Trotta, “Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology,” Contemp. Phys.49, 71–104 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089

    2008 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Information criteria for astrophysical model selection,

    A. R. Liddle, “Information criteria for astrophysical model selection,”Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.377, L74–L78 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701113

    2007 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Ellipsoidal expansion of the Universe, cosmic shear, acceleration and jerk parameter,

    L. Tedesco, “Ellipsoidal expansion of the Universe, cosmic shear, acceleration and jerk parameter,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus133, 188 (2018), arXiv:1804.11203, doi:10.1140/epjp/i2018- 12034-x

    2018 arXiv

  91. [99]

    CMB anomalies after Planck,

    D. J. Schwarz, C. J. Copi, D. Huterer and G. D. Starkman, “CMB anomalies after Planck,” Class. Quantum Grav.33, 184001 (2016), arXiv:1510.07929

    2016 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Anisotropic dark energy and ellipsoidal universe,

    L. Campanelli, P. Cea, G. L. Fogli and L. Tedesco, “Anisotropic dark energy and ellipsoidal universe,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20, 1153–1166 (2011), arXiv:1103.2658, doi:10.1142/S021827181101927X

    2011 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Inhomogeneous and anisotropic Universe and apparent accelera- tion,

    G. Fanizza and L. Tedesco, “Inhomogeneous and anisotropic Universe and apparent accelera- tion,”Phys. Rev. D91, 023006 (2015), arXiv:1412.8371, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.023006

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Fractal universe and cosmic acceleration in a Lemaître–Tolman–Bondi scenario,

    L. Cosmai, G. Fanizza, F. Sylos Labini, L. Pietronero and L. Tedesco, “Fractal universe and cosmic acceleration in a Lemaître–Tolman–Bondi scenario,”Class. Quantum Grav. 36, 045007 (2019), arXiv:1810.06318, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aae8f7

    2019 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Colloquium: The cosmic dipole anomaly,

    N. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee and S. Sarkar, “Colloquium: The cosmic dipole anomaly,”Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 041001 (2025), arXiv:2505.23526, doi:10.1103/9ygx-z2yq

    2025

  96. [104]

    The Local Distance Network: A community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at∼ 1%precision,

    H0DN Collaboration, S. Casertanoet al., “The Local Distance Network: A community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at∼ 1%precision,”Astron. Astrophys.708, A166 (2026), arXiv:2510.23823, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557993. 59

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.