Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Testing anisotropic Hubble expansion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Differential Tully-Fisher measurements across the sky hint at a 3% variation in the Hubble constant, but current data cannot yet tell this apart from a large-scale bulk flow.

desk verdict Solid, honest TF zeropoint dipole analysis whose 3.9σ signal is plausibly a north-south H I calibration artifact; deserves review but needs a systematic error budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14607 v2 pith:E5YLNDDD submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.CO

Paula Boubel , Matthew Colless , Khaled Said , Lister Staveley-Smith This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords anisotropicHubbleexpansionTully-FisherrelationCosmicflows-4cosmologicalprinciplebulkflowH0dipoledifferentialzeropoint
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

The paper tests the cosmological principle by looking for direction-dependent variation in the Hubble constant, using the Tully-Fisher distance relation applied to the Cosmicflows-4 galaxy catalog. Fitting a dipole to the Tully-Fisher zeropoint yields a 0.063 ± 0.016 mag variation toward (ℓ,b) = (142±30°, 52±10°), which would correspond to a 3% change in H0 (ΔH0 = 2.10 ± 0.53 km/s/Mpc at H0 = 70) at 3.9σ significance. However, a model with a constant H0 plus a ΛCDM-consistent bulk flow is actually favored over the pure H0-dipole interpretation, so the current signal is not yet a detection of anisotropic expansion. The paper's key forward-looking claim is that the combined WALLABY and DESI Tully-Fisher surveys, with an order of magnitude more galaxies and wider redshift coverage, will detect a 1% H0 dipole at 5.8σ and decisively separate it from a bulk flow. This would provide a clean test of whether the Universe expands isotropically at low redshift.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Tully-Fisher relation's zeropoint a0, which is degenerate with the Hubble constant via M(w,h) = M(w,h=1) + 5 log h. Because the absolute zeropoint cannot be calibrated, the method uses only differential variations of a0 across the sky, expanding a0(ℓ,b) as a monopole plus dipole (and optionally quadrupole) in Galactic Cartesian components. A measured zeropoint anisotropy Δa0 maps directly to an H0 anisotropy through ΔH0 = H0($10^{{Δa0/5}}$ − 1) (Eq. 3.7), so a dipolar a0 pattern is a dipolar H0 pattern. The analysis is embedded in a forward-modeling fit that simultaneously constrains the Tully-Fisher parameters and the peculiar velocity field, allowing competing models (H0 dipole vs. bulk flow) to be compared through their Bayesian evidence.

What would settle it

Measure the H0 dipole with the combined WALLABY and DESI Tully-Fisher sample: if the recovered dipole amplitude is consistent with zero at the sensitivity that should detect a 1% signal at 5.8σ, the current 3% anisotropy is not a cosmological signal, and the north-south H I line-width heterogeneity (a Δlog W = 0.01 offset) becomes the leading systematic explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that differential measurements of the Tully-Fisher zeropoint across the sky are a clean, calibration-independent way to search for anisotropic Hubble expansion, and that current data already show a hint of such an anisotropy. Using the W1-band Cosmicflows-4 Tully-Fisher sample with cz > 3000 km/s, the authors find a best-fit dipolar zeropoint variation of amplitude 0.063 ± 0.016 mag in the direction (ℓ,b) = (142 ± 30°, 52 ± 10°). Since a zeropoint shift of Δa0 mag corresponds to ΔH0 = H0($10^{{Δa0/5}}$ − 1), this implies ΔH0 = 2.10 ± 0.53 km/s/Mpc at H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc, a 3% sky variation with 3.9σ statistical significance. When the same data are fit with a constant H0 plus a bulk flow, the Bayes factor lnB = 4.7 favors the bulk-flow model over the H0-dipole model, so the anisotropic interpretation is not yet established. Simulations of the upcoming WALLABY and DESI Tully-Fisher datasets show that these surveys, by increasing the sample roughly tenfold and extending to z ≈ 0.1, will detect a 1% H0 dipole at 5.8σ, a 1.2% quadrupole at 5σ, and will clearly distinguish an H0 dipole from a bulk flow, with Bayes factors improving by factors of 25–85.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the intrinsic Tully-Fisher relation is everywhere the same and that photometric and H I line-width measurements have no position-dependent calibration differences, so that any angular variation in the fitted zeropoint must be a real variation in H0 (or a real bulk flow).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 3% H0 dipole is real, any H0 measurement from a sky region that is not uniformly sampled will carry a direction-dependent bias of up to ~2 km/s/Mpc toward (ℓ,b) ≈ (142°, 52°).
  • The dipole minimum direction is consistent with the anisotropies reported in galaxy cluster scaling relations, suggesting a common underlying signal that deserves a dedicated comparison across distance indicators.
  • With WALLABY and DESI data, the method will either confirm a 1% (or larger) H0 dipole at better than 5σ or rule it out, breaking the degeneracy with the local bulk flow.
  • A detectable quadrupole at the 1.2% level would provide direct evidence for the multipole structure predicted in generalized FLRW frameworks, which current data cannot yet constrain.
  • Sample variance in the local H0 value (~1.3 km/s/Mpc for the CF4 volume) reduces the significance of the Hubble tension and must be folded into future anisotropy constraints as a systematic floor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The differential-zeropoint strategy is not limited to Tully-Fisher: applying the same multipole decomposition to a homogeneous all-sky supernova sample that shares a single photometric calibration would provide an independent cross-check of the H0 dipole without the north-south line-width heterogeneity that limits the present analysis.
  • Because a bulk flow's imprint on the zeropoint scales with redshift while an H0 dipole does not, a single survey that pushes to z > 0.1 with dense sky coverage could separate the two effects even without the full WALLABY+DESI sample size; the redshift lever arm is the physically decisive feature.
  • If the future surveys confirm the dipole at the 1% level but the direction differs from the current (ℓ,b) = (142°, 52°) maximum, that would point to a systematic in the CF4 H I line-width calibrations rather than a cosmological anisotropy, given how close the current dipole sits to the Zone of Avoidance.
  • The dominant systematic risk — a north-south offset in H I line-width catalogs as small as Δlog W = 0.01 — can be directly tested by comparing overlapping WALLABY and FASt data in the declination overlap region, providing a near-term empirical check independent of the cosmological interpretation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the Tully-Fisher relation in the Cosmicflows-4 catalog to search for directional variation in the Hubble constant. The authors fit a zeropoint monopole, dipole, and quadrupole to the W1-band TF data, report a 3.9σ dipole of amplitude 0.063±0.016 mag in the direction (ℓ,b)=(142±30°,52±10°), and translate this into a possible 3% H0 variation. They compare the H0 dipole model with a constant H0 plus bulk flow model using BIC, finding the bulk flow model strongly favored. Using injection-recovery mocks, they then forecast that future WALLABY and DESI TF data could detect a 1% H0 dipole at 5.8σ and distinguish it from a ΛCDM bulk flow.

Significance. The paper offers a plausible new avenue for testing the cosmological principle with TF data, and the careful model comparison between an H0 dipole and a bulk flow is a useful step. The authors are transparent about the degeneracy between these interpretations. The mock-based forecasts for WALLABY/DESI are timely and the injection-recovery procedure is a strength. However, the headline dipole significance and the forecast detection claim are undercut by (i) an unmodeled north-south H I calibration systematic that the paper itself notes is comparable in size to the signal, and (ii) a numerical inconsistency in the forecast significances. These issues need to be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.2, Table 1] The statement in the abstract that 'A model that includes this H0 dipole is only weakly favored relative to a model with a constant H0 and a bulk motion' is contradicted by Table 1, where the velocity dipole (bulk flow) is the preferred model with lnB01 = 4.7, which the authors themselves call 'strong evidence' in Section 4.2. As written, the abstract reverses the direction of the model comparison and could mislead readers into thinking the H0 dipole is preferred over the bulk flow. The abstract should state that the bulk-flow model is favored over the H0 dipole model, or that the H0 dipole is not preferred once a bulk flow is allowed.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 4.1, Eqs. (3.5)-(3.7)] The quoted 3.9σ significance of the dipole is purely statistical and does not include the dominant systematic from heterogeneous H I line-width sources. The paper notes in Section 2.2 that a 0.01 dex offset in log W corresponds to a 3% effect on H0, the same size as the claimed dipole, and the best-fit dipole is dominated by a0z = 0.048 ± 0.014 mag, i.e., a north-south asymmetry. The KS test (p = 0.077) cannot constrain zero-point offsets between the northern ALFALFA-based sample and the southern (ADHI/Springob/Cornell/Pre-Digital) samples, and no per-catalog zero-point nuisance parameters are included in the fit. A plausible calibration offset could therefore produce the entire dipole. The authors should fit per-catalog zero-point offsets or otherwise demonstrate robustness to 0.01 dex offsets, and propagate this systematic into the reported significance.
  3. [Section 5.2] The forecast that WALLABY+DESI will detect a 1% H0 dipole at 5.8σ is not supported by the presented numbers. The text states that a 3% H0 dipole is detected at 9σ when fitting for the H0 dipole; under Gaussian scaling, a 1% dipole should then be detected at about 3σ, not 5.8σ. The authors do not show the significance distribution for the 1% injection, nor do the mocks include the north-south line-width calibration uncertainty that the paper itself identifies as a persistent limitation even for future datasets. Either provide the full injection-recovery results for the 1% case and reconcile the scaling, or soften the 5.8σ claim to reflect that it is conditional on the absence of calibration systematics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'However, m simulations that the expected Tully-Fisher data...' appears to be missing a verb or phrase; it likely should read 'our simulations show that'.
  2. [Section 2.2] The KS test p-value of 0.077 is marginal; the phrase 'providing no evidence the distributions differ significantly' should be softened to 'providing no strong evidence'.
  3. [Section 5.1] There is a typo in the sentence 'a bulk flow has a an error of only ± 10 km/s in each component'.
  4. [Section 6] In the conclusions, 'the uncertainties in measurements H0' is missing the word 'of' before 'H0'.
  5. [Section 5.2] The forecast combines WALLABY and DESI but does not include FASHI, despite FASHI being introduced earlier as a future H I survey with more than 100,000 sources; a sentence justifying the exclusion would strengthen the forecast.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the H0 dipole is an explicitly fitted reparametrization of the TF zeropoint dipole, and the future sensitivity claims are injection-recovery power forecasts.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and transparent. The H0 dipole is not an independent prediction; it is a reparametrization of the fitted Tully-Fisher zeropoint dipole through Eqs. (3.6)-(3.7), and the paper consistently describes it as a 'best-fit' quantity and conditions the physical interpretation on the assumption that zeropoint variations are due to H0 variations. The bulk-flow degeneracy is explicitly quantified and acknowledged (Table 1: lnB = 4.7 favoring the velocity dipole, lnB = 0.99 for velocity plus H0 dipole versus velocity alone), so the central claim is not presented as uniquely forced. The WALLABY/DESI detection forecasts are injection-recovery simulations with known injected signals, which is a standard statistical power calculation rather than a circular derivation. Self-citations to the companion forward-modeling paper [25] provide methodology and an externally measured bulk flow; they do not assume or assert the H0 dipole result. The stated assumption of a spatially uniform intrinsic Tully-Fisher relation and photometric calibration is explicitly recognized as a limitation, not secured by circular reasoning. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a fitted multipole expansion of the TF zeropoint; the dipole is the result, not an independently derived quantity. The main load-bearing inputs from outside the paper are the assumptions of TF spatial uniformity, mutual consistency of H I catalogs, the companion paper's bulk flow model, and the mock universe generator.

free parameters (5)
  • Zeropoint dipole components (a0x, a0y, a0z) = (-0.027±0.015, 0.022±0.015, 0.048±0.014) mag
    Fitted to CF4 W1 data (Section 4.1). This is the central signal; its conversion to ΔH0 uses Eq. 3.7.
  • Zeropoint monopole a00 = -19.928±0.009 mag
    Fitted TF zeropoint monopole; nuisance parameter in the multipole expansion (Eq. 3.5).
  • Quadrupole coefficients (5) = amplitude |a0|_quad = 0.09±0.08 mag
    Fitted but not significant (1.1-sigma); included for completeness.
  • Lower redshift cut = cz > 3000 km/s
    Hand-chosen threshold (Section 4). Lower cuts slightly increase the dipole significance; higher cuts leave it within 1-sigma.
  • TF relation nuisance parameters (a1, a2, ε0, ε1) = fitted jointly (see [25])
    These absorb the slope, curvature, and scatter of the TF relation; they are fit simultaneously with the multipoles but are not the focus.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The intrinsic Tully-Fisher relation is spatially uniform across the sky.
    Section 3: 'Assuming that the intrinsic Tully-Fisher relation is the same everywhere...' If false, the dipole could be a photometric or kinematic artifact.
  • domain assumption H I line-width catalogs from different telescopes are mutually consistent after conversion.
    Section 2.2: KS test p = 0.077 between north and south; the paper notes a 0.01 dex systematic would produce a 3% H0 effect.
  • domain assumption The external bulk flow Vext from [25] describes the local velocity field for model comparison.
    Sections 4.2 and 5.1 use Vext = (-90±10, +35±9, -209±9) km/s from the companion paper; the Bayes factors depend on this comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper Mock catalogs reproduce the observed CF4 data and the expected WALLABY/DESI samples.
    Section 5: mocks use the procedure from [25]; the WALLABY reference simulation is acknowledged as based on outdated survey plans (footnote 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing anisotropic Hubble expansion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5YLNDDD

@misc{pith2026241214607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing anisotropic Hubble expansion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5YLNDDD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14607}
}
abstract

The cosmological principle asserting the large-scale uniformity of the Universe is a testable assumption of the standard cosmological model. We explore the constraints on anisotropic expansion provided by measuring directional variation in the Hubble constant, $H_0$, derived from differential zeropoint measurements of the Tully-Fisher distance estimator. We fit various models for directional variation in $H_0$ using the Tully-Fisher dataset from the all-sky Cosmicflows-4 catalog. The best-fit dipole variation has an amplitude of 0.063 $\pm$ 0.016 mag in the direction ($\ell,b$) = (142 $\pm$ 30$^{\circ}$, 52 $\pm$ 10$^{\circ}$). If this were due to anisotropic expansion it would imply a 3% variation in $H_0$, corresponding to $\Delta H_0$ = 2.10 $\pm$ 0.53 km/s/Mpc if $H_0$ = 70 km/s/Mpc, with a significance of 3.9$\sigma$. A model that includes this $H_0$ dipole is only weakly favored relative to a model with a constant $H_0$ and a bulk motion of the volume sampled by Cosmicflows-4 that is consistent with the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. However, we show that with the expected Tully-Fisher data from the WALLABY and DESI surveys it should be possible to detect a 1% $H_0$ dipole anisotropy at 5.8$\sigma$ confidence and to distinguish it from the typical bulk flow predicted by $\Lambda$CDM over the volume of these surveys.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A low value of $H_0$ in tension with the distance ladder from Megamasers using peculiar velocity reconstruction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reanalyzing six megamaser galaxies with the M25 peculiar velocity reconstruction yields H0 ≈ 68.7 km/s/Mpc, consistent with the CMB and about 2.2σ below the local distance ladder.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An analytic weak-shear Bianchi I calculation bounds the low-redshift luminosity-distance quadrupole to |Aμ(0.15)|≲2.4×10^-11 mag under BBN shear limits, ruling out shear-only resolution of the Hubble tension.

  3. Alleviating the Hubble Tension with a Local Void and Transitions of the Absolute Magnitude

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Deep LTB void models with two or three distance-dependent jumps in the supernova absolute magnitude fit Pantheon+ and Planck data well and push the inferred local Hubble constant toward the SH0ES value.

  4. Redshift Dependence of $H_0$ Dipole in Pantheon+ Supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A dipole in the locally measured Hubble constant appears at 2-3 sigma in the lowest-redshift Pantheon+ supernova bins, points near the Shapley supercluster and CMB dipole, and disappears for higher redshift thresholds.

  5. Anisotropic power-law inflation for the S\'aez-Ballester theory non-minimally coupled to a vector field

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A stable anisotropic inflationary solution exists in the Saez-Ballester theory, but it is equivalent to the known Kanno-Soda-Watanabe solution and has a too-large tensor-to-scalar ratio.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Krishnan, R

    C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E. Colg´ ain, M. Sheikh-Jabbari and L. Yin, Does Hubble tension signal a breakdown in FLR W cosmology?, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38 (2021) 184001

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Secrest, S

    N.J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar and J. Colin, A test of the cosmological principle with quasars , ApJL 908 (2021) L51

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Secrest, S

    N.J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee and S. Sarkar, A challenge to the standard cosmological model, ApJL 937 (2022) L31

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A. Sah, M. Rameez, S. Sarkar and C. Tsagas, Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Mc Conville and E

    R. Mc Conville and E. ´O Colg´ ain,Anisotropic distance ladder in Pantheon+ supernovae , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 123533

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Luongo, M

    O. Luongo, M. Muccino, E.O. Colg´ ain, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and L. Yin, Larger H0 values in the CMB dipole direction , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 103510

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Krishnan, R

    C. Krishnan, R. Mohayaee, E.O. Colg´ ain, M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari and L. Yin, Hints of FLR W breakdown from supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 063514

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Sorrenti, R

    F. Sorrenti, R. Durrer and M. Kunz, The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data , JCAP 2023 (2023) 054

    work page 2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Zhai and W.J

    Z. Zhai and W.J. Percival, Sample variance for supernovae distance measurements and the Hubble tension , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 103527

    2022

  2. [10]

    P., Wang, Y

    Hu, J. P., Wang, Y. Y., Hu, J. and Wang, F. Y., Testing the cosmological principle with the Pantheon+ sample and the region-fitting method , A&A 681 (2024) A88

    2024

  3. [11]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A.G. Riess, T.M. Davis, A. Dwomoh et al., The Pantheon+ analysis: The full data set and light-curve release , ApJ 938 (2022) 113

    2022

  4. [12]

    Migkas, F

    K. Migkas, F. Pacaud, G. Schellenberger, J. Erler, N.T. Nguyen-Dang, T.H. Reiprich et al., Cosmological implications of the anisotropy of ten galaxy cluster scaling relations , A&A 649 (2021) A151

    2021

  5. [13]

    H., Stanford, A., Pacaud, F., Schellenberger, G

    Pandya, A., Migkas, K., Reiprich, T. H., Stanford, A., Pacaud, F., Schellenberger, G. et al., Examining the local Universe isotropy with galaxy cluster velocity dispersion scaling relations , A&A 691 (2024) A355. – 16 –

    2024

  6. [14]

    Heinesen, Multipole decomposition of the general luminosity distance Hubble law — a new framework for observational cosmology , JCAP 2021 (2021) 008

    A. Heinesen, Multipole decomposition of the general luminosity distance Hubble law — a new framework for observational cosmology , JCAP 2021 (2021) 008

    2021

  7. [15]

    Cowell, S

    J.A. Cowell, S. Dhawan and H.J. Macpherson, Potential signature of a quadrupolar hubble expansion in Pantheon+ supernovae , MNRAS 526 (2023) 1482

    2023

  8. [16]

    Macpherson and A

    H.J. Macpherson and A. Heinesen, Luminosity distance and anisotropic sky-sampling at low redshifts: A numerical relativity study , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Boubel, M

    P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said and L. Staveley-Smith, An improved Tully–Fisher estimate of H0, MNRAS 533 (2024) 1550

    2024

  10. [18]

    Haynes, R

    M.P. Haynes, R. Giovanelli, B. Kent, E. Adams, T. Balonek, D. Craig et al., The Arecibo Legacy Fast ALF A Survey: The ALF ALF A extragalactic H I source catalog, ApJ 861 (2018) 49

    2018

  11. [19]

    Courtois, R.B

    H.M. Courtois, R.B. Tully, J.R. Fisher, N. Bonhomme, M. Zavodny and A. Barnes, The extragalactic distance database: All digital H I profile catalog , AJ 138 (2009) 1938

    2009

  12. [20]

    Springob, M.P

    C.M. Springob, M.P. Haynes, R. Giovanelli and B.R. Kent, A digital archive of H I 21 centimeter line spectra of optically targeted galaxies , ApJS 160 (2005) 149

    2005

  13. [21]

    Kourkchi, R.B

    E. Kourkchi, R.B. Tully, S. Eftekharzadeh, J. Llop, H.M. Courtois, D. Guinet et al., Cosmicflows-4: The catalog of ∼10,000 Tully–Fisher distances , ApJ 902 (2020) 145

    2020

  14. [22]

    D.G. York, J. Adelman, J. John E. Anderson, S.F. Anderson, J. Annis, N.A. Bahcall et al., The Sloan Digital Sky Survey: Technical summary , AJ 120 (2000) 1579

    2000

  15. [23]

    Wright, P.R.M

    E.L. Wright, P.R.M. Eisenhardt, A.K. Mainzer, M.E. Ressler, R.M. Cutri, T. Jarrett et al., The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE): Mission description and initial on-orbit performance, AJ 140 (2010) 1868

    2010

  16. [24]

    Kourkchi, R.B

    E. Kourkchi, R.B. Tully, J.D. Neill, M. Seibert, H.M. Courtois and A. Dupuy, Global Attenuation in Spiral Galaxies in Optical and Infrared Bands , ApJ 884 (2019) 82 [1909.01572]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Boubel, M

    P. Boubel, M. Colless, K. Said and L. Staveley-Smith, Large-scale motions and growth rate from forward-modelling Tully–Fisher peculiar velocities , MNRAS 531 (2024) 84

    2024

  18. [26]

    Kourkchi, R.B

    E. Kourkchi, R.B. Tully, G. Anand, H.M. Courtois, A. Dupuy, J.D. Neill et al., Cosmicflows-4: The calibration of optical and infrared Tully–Fisher relations , ApJ 896 (2020) 3

    2020

  19. [27]

    Planck Collaboration:, Aghanim, Y

    N. Planck Collaboration:, Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al., Planck 2018 results - VI. cosmological parameters , A&A 641 (2020) A6

    2020

  20. [28]

    Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , Contemporary Physics 49 (2008) 71

    R. Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology , Contemporary Physics 49 (2008) 71

    2008

  21. [29]

    Liddle, Statistical methods for cosmological parameter selection and estimation , Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 59 (2009) 95

    A.R. Liddle, Statistical methods for cosmological parameter selection and estimation , Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 59 (2009) 95

    2009

  22. [30]

    Schwarz, Estimating the dimension of a model , The annals of statistics (1978) 461

    G. Schwarz, Estimating the dimension of a model , The annals of statistics (1978) 461

    1978

  23. [31]

    Kass and A.E

    R.E. Kass and A.E. Raftery, Bayes factors , Journal of the American Statistical Association 90 (1995) 773

    1995

  24. [32]

    Jeffreys, The theory of probability , OUP Oxford (1998)

    H. Jeffreys, The theory of probability , OUP Oxford (1998)

    1998

  25. [33]

    John and J

    M.V. John and J. Narlikar, Comparison of cosmological models using Bayesian theory , Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 043506

    2002

  26. [34]

    Drell, T.J

    P.S. Drell, T.J. Loredo and I. Wasserman, Type IA supernovae, evolution, and the cosmological constant, ApJ 530 (2000) 593

    2000

  27. [35]

    Scrimgeour, T

    M.I. Scrimgeour, T. Davis, C. Blake, J.B. James, G.B. Poole, L. Staveley-Smith et al., The wigglez dark energy survey: the transition to large-scale cosmic homogeneity , MNRAS 425 (2012) 116. – 17 –

    2012

  28. [36]

    Martinez, M.-J

    V.J. Martinez, M.-J. Pons-Borderia, R.A. Moyeed and M.J. Graham, Searching for the scale of homogeneity, MNRAS 298 (1998) 1212

    1998

  29. [37]

    Camarena and V

    D. Camarena and V. Marra, Impact of the cosmic variance on H0 on cosmological analyses, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 023537

    2018

  30. [38]

    Zhai, W.J

    Z. Zhai, W.J. Percival and Z. Ding, Effective volume of supernovae samples and sample variance, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 063519

    2024

  31. [39]

    Wojtak, A

    R. Wojtak, A. Knebe, W.A. Watson, I.T. Iliev, S. Heß, D. Rapetti et al., Cosmic variance of the local hubble flow in large-scale cosmological simulations , MNRAS 438 (2013) 1805

    2013

  32. [40]

    Camarena, V

    D. Camarena, V. Marra, Z. Sakr and C. Clarkson, A void in the hubble tension? the end of the line for the hubble bubble , Classical and Quantum Gravity 39 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Wu and D

    H.-Y. Wu and D. Huterer, Sample variance in the local measurements of the hubble constant , MNRAS 471 (2017) 4946

    2017

  34. [42]

    Whitford, C

    A.M. Whitford, C. Howlett and T.M. Davis, Evaluating bulk flow estimators for cosmicflows–4 measurements, MNRAS 526 (2023) 3051

    2023

  35. [43]

    Carrick, S.J

    J. Carrick, S.J. Turnbull, G. Lavaux and M.J. Hudson, Cosmological parameters from the comparison of peculiar velocities with predictions from the 2M++ density field , MNRAS 450 (2015) 317

    2015

  36. [44]

    G´ orski, E

    K.M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., HEALPix: A framework for high-resolution discretization and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere , ApJ 622 (2005) 759

    2005

  37. [45]

    Koribalski, L

    B.S. Koribalski, L. Staveley-Smith, T. Westmeier, P. Serra, K. Spekkens, O.I. Wong et al., WALLABY – an SKA Pathfinder HI survey , ApSS 365 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Westmeier, N

    T. Westmeier, N. Deg, K. Spekkens, T.N. Reynolds, A.X. Shen, S. Gaudet et al., WALLABY pilot survey: Public release of H I data for almost 600 galaxies from phase 1 of ASKAP pilot observations, PASA 39 (2022) e058

    2022

  39. [47]

    J. Kang, M. Zhu, M. Ai, H. Yu and C. Sun, Extragalactic H I Survey with F AST: First look at the pilot survey results , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 22 (2022) 065019

    2022

  40. [48]

    Zhang, M

    C.-P. Zhang, M. Zhu, P. Jiang, C. Cheng, J. Wang, J. Wang et al., The F AST all sky H I survey (F ASHI): The first release of catalog, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 67 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Courtois, K

    H.M. Courtois, K. Said, J. Mould, T.H. Jarrett, D. Pomar` ede, T. Westmeier et al., WALLABY pre-pilot and pilot survey: The Tully Fisher relation in Eridanus, Hydra, Norma, and NGC4636 fields , MNRAS 519 (2022) 4589–4607

    2022

  42. [50]

    Saulder, C

    C. Saulder, C. Howlett, K.A. Douglass, K. Said, S. BenZvi, S. Ahlen et al., Target selection for the DESI Peculiar Velocity Survey , MNRAS 525 (2023) 1106

    2023

  43. [51]

    Robitaille, E.J

    T.P. Robitaille, E.J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droettboom, E. Bray, T. Aldcroft et al., Astropy: A community python package for astronomy , A&A 558 (2013) A33

    2013

  44. [52]

    Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples , 2019

    A. Lewis, Getdist: a python package for analysing monte carlo samples , 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC hammer , PASP 125 (2013) 306

    2013

  46. [54]

    Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , Comput

    J.D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 (2007) 90. – 18 –

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.