Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 9 cited by

Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the local Hubble expansion and the deceleration parameter carry statistically significant dipoles in every reference frame, so the acceleration inferred from supernovae is a local bulk-flow effect rather than the…

desk verdict A careful, reproducible re-analysis that makes a strong H0-dipole claim and a stronger q0-dipole claim; the q0 significance needs a null calibration before the >5 sigma wording can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10838 v2 pith:GHGI6B4G submitted 2024-11-16 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Animesh Sah , Mohamed Rameez , Subir Sarkar , Christos Tsagas This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords TypeIasupernovaeHubbleparameteranisotropydecelerationpeculiarvelocitiesbulkflowtilteduniversecosmologicalprinciplePantheon+catalogue
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 re-analyzes the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova catalogue with maximum-likelihood estimators to test the isotropy of the cosmic expansion, working in the heliocentric, CMB and Local Group frames. The authors find a statistically significant dipolar variation in the Hubble expansion rate exceeding 1.5 km/s/Mpc over 0.023 < z < 0.15 in all three frames, larger than the claimed 1% precision of the local H0 measurement. They also find a >5 sigma, redshift-dependent dipole in the deceleration parameter q0, consistent with earlier JLA results. They conclude that the inferred cosmic acceleration cannot be due to a cosmological constant and is instead a general-relativistic effect of the local bulk flow. A sympathetic reader cares because this directly challenges the standard ΛCDM interpretation of dark energy and reframes the Hubble tension as a breakdown of the assumption that the local universe is isotropic.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a maximum-likelihood estimator that analytically marginalises over an intrinsic Gaussian scatter in absolute magnitude (and, in analysis C2, over stretch and colour), combined with a third-order cosmographic expansion of the distance modulus in redshift. Anisotropy is parametrised as $H = H_m + H_d \hat{n}$ for the Hubble parameter and $q_0 = q_m + q_d \hat{n} e^{-z/S}$ for the deceleration parameter, with significance assessed by Wilks' theorem. The frame choice is the critical handle: the same data are fit in heliocentric ($z_{\mathrm{hel}}$), CMB ($z_{\mathrm{CMB}}$) and Local Group ($z_{\mathrm{LG}}$) frames, and compared with the 'Hubble diagram' frame $z_{\mathrm{HD}}$ in which redshifts are corrected for both observer and host-galaxy peculiar velocities using a Newtonian flow model that assumes ΛCDM beyond the survey volume. The physical interpretation invokes the relativistic tilted-universe equations, in which two observers in relative motion assign different deceleration tensors to the same spacetime, producing a Doppler-like dipole in $H$ and $q_0$ that decays with redshift.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to repeat the dipole fit on a supernova sample that has not been pre-corrected with model-dependent peculiar velocities and that has uniform sky coverage in redshift bins: if the dipole in H0 or q0 disappears or shifts direction when only the raw redshifts and a complete-sky selection are used, the claim would be refuted. The tilted-universe interpretation specifically predicts that the q0 dipole should decay on a scale of order S ~ 0.01 and align with the local bulk flow, so a future dataset with thousands of low-redshift supernovae that shows an undiminished or misaligned dipole at z > 0.1 would also falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the local expansion of the universe is anisotropic at a level that is too large to ignore. On the Pantheon+ sample, a dipole in the Hubble parameter of amplitude greater than 1.5 km/s/Mpc is reported in the redshift range 0.023 < z < 0.15 in the heliocentric, CMB and Local Group frames. The deceleration parameter q0 shows a dipolar modulation that decays with redshift, with a significance above 5 sigma when the sample includes SNe at z > 0.00937. The direction and decay length of the q0 dipole match the signature expected from an observer moving with a contracting bulk flow in the 'tilted universe' scenario, so the authors conclude that the cosmic acceleration inferred from supernovae cannot be due to a cosmological constant.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the Pantheon+ covariance matrix and the peculiar-velocity corrections are accurate enough for the claimed precision; those corrections assume a ΛCDM background beyond the survey volume, so a wrong flow model could create or hide the dipole.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The local measurement of H0 to 1% precision is not valid if the local expansion is anisotropic at the level reported, since the anisotropy exceeds the claimed precision in the same redshift range.
  • The cosmic acceleration inferred from supernovae cannot be attributed to a cosmological constant; it would instead be a general-relativistic effect of the local bulk flow.
  • Redshift corrections that apply model-dependent peculiar velocities ($z_{\mathrm{HD}}$) can mask a genuine dipole, so the standard 'isotropisation' of supernova data assumes the very cosmological model being tested.
  • The monopole deceleration parameter is consistent with zero unless light-curve stretch and colour are allowed to be sample- and redshift-dependent, which would undermine the standard-candle assumption.
  • The dipole in $q_0$ decays with redshift as predicted by the tilted-universe scenario, providing a consistency check against the data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to map the dipole as a function of redshift and sky position using upcoming wide-field supernova samples; if the dipole direction is stable and scales as the predicted decay, this would strengthen the bulk-flow interpretation without relying on the Pantheon+ covariance.
  • If the tilted-universe interpretation is right, the same frame-dependent anisotropy should appear in other cosmological observables, such as the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect or gravitational lensing, which could be tested with CMB and galaxy-survey data.
  • The paper implicitly predicts that a correction based on a fully relativistic (rather than Newtonian, ΛCDM-extended) peculiar-velocity model would still leave a residual dipole; fitting this would quantify how much of the signal is model-dependent.
  • The observed anisotropy may also affect distance-ladder estimates of the Hubble constant, suggesting that the 'Hubble tension' could be partly a geometric effect of the local flow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyses the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova catalogue for large-scale dipolar anisotropies in the Hubble expansion rate and the deceleration parameter, using maximum-likelihood estimators in the heliocentric, CMB, and Local Group frames, with two treatments of light-curve standardisation (C1 and C2). In the redshift range 0.023 < z < 0.15, the authors report a dipolar variation in H0 exceeding 1.5 km/s/Mpc in all three frames, with significances ranging from about 3 to 8 sigma depending on analysis choices. For q0, they find a redshift-dependent dipole that decays with redshift, claiming >5 sigma significance in several frames, and interpret this as evidence of a 'tilted universe' scenario in which the apparent cosmic acceleration is an artefact of the local bulk flow, concluding that the acceleration cannot be due to a cosmological constant.

Significance. If the statistical claims hold, the results would challenge the standard FLRW interpretation of the supernova Hubble diagram and would tie together several existing anomalies: the CMB dipole, the bulk flow, and the anisotropy of the deceleration parameter. The paper is careful in several respects: it provides two independent analysis pipelines (C1 and C2), examines three different observer frames, releases the code, and presents falsifiable predictions, notably the redshift decay of the q0 dipole in Fig. 9 and the shell-resolved dipole of H0 in Fig. 3. These are genuine strengths. The main risk is statistical: the >5 sigma claim for the q0 dipole rests on an application of Wilks' theorem to a model with parameters that are unidentifiable at the null hypothesis, and the significance of the H0 dipole shows a notable sensitivity to the intrinsic-scatter parameter sigma_M0. These issues are load-bearing and require additional calibration before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (15), Table 5] The significance of the q0 dipole is computed from the profile likelihood ratio using Wilks' theorem with 2 or 4 degrees of freedom. At the null hypothesis qd = 0, however, the dipole direction n and the decay scale S are unidentifiable: the model q0 = qm + qd·n e^{−z/S} collapses to q0 = qm for all n and S. The likelihood-ratio statistic is therefore the supremum of a χ² process over the two-sphere and over S, and its null distribution is not χ² with 2 or 4 d.o.f. The check in §3.1 that the pull distribution is 'narrower than Gaussian' refers to standardized residuals, not to the null distribution of the profile likelihood ratio, so it does not validate the reported significances. Since the abstract's central claim is that the deceleration parameter has a '> 5 sigma' dipolar modulation, the authors should calibrate the null distribution by Monte Carlo simulation of isotropic synthetic data using the same two pipelines and frames, and report empirical p-values (or a properly computed trials factor). Without this, the statistical significance of the q0 dipole is not established.
  2. [§3.1, footnote to Table 2] The significance of the Hubble-rate dipole in analysis C2 depends sensitively on the assumed intrinsic-scatter parameter sigma_M0. The footnote reports that if sigma_M0 is set to 0.2 (the best-fit value over the full 0 < z < 0.8 range), the significance in the heliocentric frame drops to 1.8 sigma, from values around 3.5–3.8 sigma in Tables 2 and 4. Since the abstract claims a 'statistically significant' dipolar variation 'in all frames', the authors should either demonstrate that profiling over sigma_M0 (rather than fixing it at a value chosen for a particular redshift range) yields a stable significance, or report the range of significances across reasonable treatments of sigma_M0 and temper the abstract accordingly. As written, the claim is not robust to this nuisance-parameter choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1] The abstract says the analyses are carried out in the heliocentric, CMB, and Local Group frames and then states 'In all frames' the Hubble expansion rate is anisotropic; this should be clarified to mean those three frames only, since Fig. 3 shows that in the zHD frame (with peculiar-velocity corrections) the dipole is consistent with zero in the SH0ES redshift range.
  2. [Tables 1–5] The notation 'α' for statistical significance (e.g., '3.5σ') conflicts with the standard use of α as the significance level; consider using 'Nsig' or 'significance' in the table headers and captions.
  3. [§3.1] The sentence 'Assuming that this follows a χ² distribution (with 3 d.o.f.)' should read 'Assuming that 2ΔLL follows a χ² distribution'; additionally, the likelihood expression in Eq. (8) would benefit from an explicit definition of the vectors and matrices involved.
  4. [Appendix A, Tables A1–A4] There are typographical errors in the captions ('wich' instead of 'which') and in Table A3 the entry '.03/ln 2' should be '0.03/ln 2'; these should be corrected.
  5. [§3.1, pull-distribution check] The statement that the pull distribution is 'narrower than Gaussian' is too terse to be evaluated; the authors should specify how the pull distribution is defined, report its variance, and explain why it bears on the likelihood-ratio calibration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity: the q0 dipole decay is partly assumed via the authors' own exponential-decay ansatz, but the independent shell analysis and external comparisons keep the main anisotropy claims non-circular.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 3.2, Eq. (15); Section 4.4 and Fig. 9 caption]
    "We now look for a scale- dependent dipolar modulation in the deceleration parameter q0, adopting the same exponential decay with redshift motivated previously [16]: q0 = qm + qd · ˆne−z/S , (15) ... The observed decay of the dipole in the deceleration parameter with redshift is a key prediction of the tilted universe scenario as explained in § 4."

    The exponential-decay form in Eq. (15) is imported from Ref. [16], whose authors overlap with the present paper (Rameez and Sarkar), and the predicted decay is attributed to the tilted-universe scenario of Refs. [17,18] by co-author Tsagas. Thus the full-sample fit for a 'redshift-dependent dipolar modulation' in q0 operates inside a model that already contains the decay the theory is said to predict, so part of the confirmation is built into the parametrization. The circularity is only partial because the shell analysis of Fig. 9 fits a scale-independent dipole separately in each redshift shell and exhibits the decay without imposing the exponential ansatz; the main H0 dipole result does not depend on this step.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper are that the Hubble-rate dipole in 0.023 < z < 0.15 exceeds 1.5 km/s/Mpc and that the deceleration parameter carries a >5-sigma dipolar modulation. These are outputs of maximum-likelihood fits with Hd and qd as free parameters, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions; the fits are performed in several frames and with two analysis choices (C1 and C2), and the results are compared with independent studies of the same catalogue. The one identifiable circular element is the q0 analysis: the exponential-decay parametrization of Eq. (15) is taken from the authors' prior work [16], and the decay is then presented as a 'key prediction' of the tilted-universe scenario developed by co-author Tsagas. That is a mild self-citation/ansatz issue, but it is not load-bearing for the H0 dipole and it is mitigated by the shell analysis in Fig. 9, which sees the decay without assuming the exponential form. The Wilks-theorem calibration at the null point Hd=0 or qd=0, where dipole directions and decay scales are unidentifiable, is a genuine statistical robustness concern but is a matter of significance calibration rather than circularity. Overall, the paper is largely self-contained: the anisotropy detection is a data-driven likelihood result, and the theoretical interpretation is supported by an independent derivation in Section 4 and by external comparisons. Hence no significant circularity is found beyond the minor self-citation/ansatz step described above.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fitted dipole amplitudes Hd and qd, the decay scale S, and the choice of covariance and likelihood model. The tilted-universe interpretation introduces no new entity, but it does rely on identifying the Local Group frame as the bulk-flow frame and on the theoretical result that a peculiar flux induces apparent dipoles in H0 and q0.

free parameters (6)
  • Hd = 1.8 to 2.9 km/s/Mpc depending on frame and analysis
    The dipole amplitude in the Hubble parameter is fit directly to the data in Eq. (14).
  • Hm = about 70 km/s/Mpc
    The monopole Hubble parameter is fit simultaneously with the dipole in Tables 1 to 4.
  • qd = varies from about -2 to -64 depending on frame and analysis
    The dipole amplitude of the deceleration parameter is fit using Eq. (15) with a scale S.
  • qm = about -0.01 to -0.44 depending on frame and analysis
    The monopole deceleration parameter is fit simultaneously with qd.
  • S = 0.009 to 0.028 across frames
    The decay scale of the q0 dipole is fit in the redshift-dependent parametrization, making the claimed decay partly an output of the fit.
  • sigma_M0 = 0.135 for C2 in the low-z range
    The intrinsic scatter of absolute magnitude is fit; the paper notes that changing it to 0.2 reduces significances.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The distance modulus follows the cosmographic Taylor expansion to third order in redshift, Eq. (1), which is valid only for z < 0.8 as stated.
    Section 3, Eq. (1), convergence constraint stated to be within 2%.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic scatter of SNe Ia absolute magnitudes is Gaussian with a single mean M0 and variance sigma_M0^2.
    Section 3, Eq. (7), likelihood construction following Ref. [23].
  • domain assumption Wilks' theorem applies to the likelihood ratio for the no-dipole hypothesis, with 3 or 4 degrees of freedom.
    Section 3.1, significance calculation; the authors note the pull distribution is narrower than Gaussian, which they claim makes the procedure conservative.
  • ad hoc to paper The peculiar velocity corrections applied in Pantheon+ are appropriate to remove, at least in the zHD analysis, and the uncorrected frames are meaningful for anisotropy tests.
    Section 2 describes the corrections as model-dependent and based on a Newtonian 2M++ reconstruction extended according to Lambda-CDM expectations.
  • domain assumption The covariance matrix from Lane et al. [25], used in analysis C2, correctly reconstructs the full 3N x 3N covariance including systematic terms.
    Section 3, C2 description and Appendix B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHGI6B4G

@misc{pith2026241110838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHGI6B4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10838}
}
read the original abstract

We employ Maximum Likelihood Estimators to examine the Pantheon+ catalogue of Type Ia supernovae for large scale anisotropies in the expansion rate of the Universe. The analyses are carried out in the heliocentric frame, the CMB frame, as well as the Local Group frame. In all frames, the Hubble expansion rate in the redshift range 0.023 < z < 0.15 is found to have a statistically significant dipolar variation exceeding 1.5 km/s/Mpc, i.e. bigger than the claimed 1% uncertainty in the SH0ES measurement of the Hubble parameter H_0. The deceleration parameter too has a redshift-dependent dipolar modulation at > 5 sigma significance, consistent with previous findings using the SDSSII/SNLS3 Joint Lightcurve Analysis catalogue. The inferred cosmic acceleration cannot therefore be due to a Cosmological Constant, but is likely a general relativistic effect due to the anomalous bulk flow in our local Universe.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. Horndeski in motion

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Shift-symmetric Horndeski scalars with a spatial gradient realize moving dark energy, with a universal momentum density T^0i = -Q lambda^i / sqrt(-g) and observable imprints on the CMB dipole and quadrupole.

  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. Expected redshift drift for tilted observers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Redshift drift for tilted observers consists of an FLRW background term plus directional corrections from peculiar expansion, projected shear, and acceleration along the line of sight.

  4. Covariant cosmography in the presence of local structures: comparing exact solutions and perturbation theory

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Off-center observers in a spherical LTB overdensity get accurate cosmographic distances up to δc≈2.5 near the structure, while linear perturbation theory is better beyond ~3Rs; a gauge dictionary links the two.

  5. The redshift dependence of the inferred $H_0$ in a local void solution to the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A local-void model with a Planck-compatible background predicts a declining H0(z) that broadly matches the Jia et al. 2023 and 2024 measurements for Gaussian and Exponential void profiles.

  6. 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.

  7. Response to: "Isotropic deceleration and near-zero baseline acceleration in Pantheon+ supernovae: new arguments in the dark energy debate''

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

    Ray et al. treated the CMB dipole's Galactic coordinates (264°,48°) as Equatorial, so their Pantheon+ hemisphere split (724/840) was not dipole-aligned; the correct ICRS dipole (167.8°,−7.1°) gives 539/1025.

  8. Constraints on transition redshift utilizing the latest H(z) measurements and comments on the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A meta-analysis of published transition-redshift constraints finds z_tr ≈ 0.65, which the authors suggest overlaps with the redshift where the Hubble tension begins.

  9. Anisotropy in the cosmic acceleration inferred from supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A critical review arguing that supernova data show cosmic acceleration is anisotropic and likely an artifact of local bulk flow and peculiar velocity corrections.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nature 216, 748–753 (1967) https://doi.org/10

    Stewart, J.M., Sciama, D.W.: Peculiar velocity of the sun and its relation to the cosmic microwave background. Nature 216, 748–753 (1967) https://doi.org/10. 23 1038/216748a0

    1967

  2. [2]

    : The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints

    Brout, D., et al. : The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints. Astrophys. J. 938(2), 110 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Aghanim, N., et al.: Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. Astron. Astrophys. 641, 1 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 201833880 arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    : Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing

    Abbott, T.M.C., et al. : Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing. Phys. Rev. D 98(4), 043526 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043526 arXiv:1708.01530 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Adame, A.G., et al.: DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measure- ments of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (2024) arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Ellis, G.F.R., Baldwin, J.E.: On the expected anisotropy of radio source counts. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 206(2), 377–381 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/206.2.377

    1984

  7. [7]

    Astrophys

    Secrest, N.J., Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., Sarkar, S.: A Challenge to the Standard Cosmological Model. Astrophys. J. Lett. 937(2), 31 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac88c0 arXiv:2206.05624 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Dam, L., Lewis, G.F., Brewer, B.J.: Testing the cosmological principle with Cat- WISE quasars: a bayesian analysis of the number-count dipole. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 525(1), 231–245 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2322 arXiv:2212.07733 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Wagenveld, J.D., Kl¨ ockner, H.-R., Schwarz, D.J.: The cosmic radio dipole: Bayesian estimators on new and old radio surveys. Astron. Astrophys. 675, 72 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202346210 arXiv:2305.15335 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Colin, J., Mohayaee, R., Sarkar, S., Shafieloo, A.: Probing the anisotropic local universe and beyond with SNe Ia data. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.414, 264–271 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18402.x arXiv:1011.6292 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011

  3. [11]

    Feindt, U., et al.: Measuring cosmic bulk flows with Type Ia Supernovae from the Nearby Supernova Factory. Astron. Astrophys. 560, 90 (2013) https://doi.org/ 10.1051/0004-6361/201321880 arXiv:1310.4184 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Watkins, R., Allen, T., Bradford, C.J., Ramon, A., Walker, A., Feldman, H.A., Cionitti, R., Al-Shorman, Y., Kourkchi, E., Tully, R.B.: Analysing the large-scale 24 bulk flow using cosmicflows4: increasing tension with the standard cosmological model. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc...

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Whitford, A.M., Howlett, C., Davis, T.M.: Evaluating bulk flow estimators for CosmicFlows–4 measurements. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526(2), 3051–3071 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2764 arXiv:2306.11269 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Astrophys

    Riess, A.G., et al.: A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team. Astrophys. J. Lett. 934(1), 7 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Betoule, M., et al.: Improved cosmological constraints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples. Astron. Astrophys. 568, 22 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201423413 arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Colin, J., Mohayaee, R., Rameez, M., Sarkar, S.: Evidence for anisotropy of cos- mic acceleration. Astron. Astrophys. 631, 13 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201936373 arXiv:1808.04597 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Tsagas, C.G.: Peculiar motions, accelerated expansion and the cosmological axis. Phys. Rev. D 84, 063503 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063503 arXiv:1107.4045 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Carrick, J., Turnbull, S.J., Lavaux, G., Hudson, M.J.: Cosmological parameters from the comparison of peculiar velocities with predictions from the 2M++ den- sity field. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450(1), 317–332 (2015) https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stv547 arXiv:1504.04627 [...

    2015 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Past´ en, E., C´ ardenas, V.H.: Testing ΛCDM cosmology in a binned universe: Anomalies in the deceleration parameter. Phys. Dark Univ. 40, 101224 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2023.101224 arXiv:2301.10740 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  12. [21]

    Universe 10(5), 209 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/ universe10050209 arXiv:2003.10420 [astro-ph.CO]

    Mohayaee, R., Rameez, M., Sarkar, S.: Cosmological Inference from within the Peculiar Local Universe. Universe 10(5), 209 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/ universe10050209 arXiv:2003.10420 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Astrophys

    Scolnic, D., et al.: The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release. Astrophys. J. 938(2), 113 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ ac8b7a arXiv:2112.03863 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Nielsen, J.T., Guffanti, A., Sarkar, S.: Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration 25 from Type Ia supernovae. Sci. Rep. 6, 35596 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/ srep35596 arXiv:1506.01354 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Carr, A., Davis, T.M., Scolnic, D., Said, K., Brout, D., Peterson, E.R., Kessler, R.: The Pantheon+ analysis: Improving the redshifts and peculiar velocities of Type Ia supernovae used in cosmological analyses. Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 39, 046 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1017...

    2022 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Lane, Z.G., Seifert, A., Ridden-Harper, R., Wagner, J., Wiltshire, D.L.: Cos- mological foundations revisited with Pantheon+ (2023) arXiv:2311.01438 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    : Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae

    Perlmutter, S., et al. : Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae. Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1086/307221 arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    1999 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Astier, P., et al.: The Supernova Legacy Survey: Measurement of Ω M , ΩΛ and ⊒ from the first year data set. Astron. Astrophys. 447, 31–48 (2006) https://doi. org/10.1051/0004-6361:20054185 arXiv:astro-ph/0510447

    2006 arXiv

  19. [28]

    March, M.C., Trotta, R., Berkes, P., Starkman, G.D., Vaudrevange, P.M.: Improved constraints on cosmological parameters from SNIa data. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, 2308–2329 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966. 2011.19584.x arXiv:1102.3237 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011

  20. [29]

    Astrophys

    Shariff, H., Jiao, X., Trotta, R., Dyk, D.A.: BAHAMAS: New Analysis of Type Ia Supernovae Reveals Inconsistencies with Standard Cosmology. Astrophys. J. 827(1), 1 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/1 arXiv:1510.05954 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Dam, L.H., Heinesen, A., Wiltshire, D.L.: Apparent cosmic acceleration from type Ia supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 472(1), 835–851 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1858 arXiv:1706.07236 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [31]

    John Wiley and Sons, New York (1972)

    Weinberg, S.: Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1972)

    1972

  23. [32]

    Visser, M.: Jerk and the cosmological equation of state. Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 2603–2616 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/11/006 arXiv:gr- qc/0309109

    2004

  24. [33]

    Astrophys

    Rubin, D., Heitlauf, J.: Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs still point to yes a local dipole anisotropy cannot explain dark energy. Astrophys. J. 894(1), 68 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a16 arXiv:1912.02191 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Navas, S., et al.: Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D 110(3), 030001 (2024) 26 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Rapetti, D., Allen, S.W., Amin, M.A., Blandford, R.D.: A kinematical approach to dark energy studies. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.375, 1510–1520 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11419.x arXiv:astro-ph/0605683

    2007

  27. [36]

    Guy, J., et al.: SALT2: Using distant supernovae to improve the use of Type Ia supernovae as distance indicators. Astron. Astrophys. 466, 11–21 (2007) https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20066930 arXiv:astro-ph/0701828

    2007 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Astrophys

    Phillips, M.M.: The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae. Astrophys. J. Lett. 413, 105–108 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1086/186970

    1993 doi

  29. [38]

    Tripp, R.: A Two-parameter luminosity correction for type Ia supernovae. Astron. Astrophys. 331, 815–820 (1998)

    1998

  30. [39]

    Astrophys

    Rubin, D., Hayden, B.: Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs point to yes. Astrophys. J. Lett. 833(2), 30 (2016) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/833/2/L30 arXiv:1610.08972 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Mohayaee, R., Rameez, M., Sarkar, S.: Do supernovae indicate an accelerating universe? Eur. Phys. J. ST 230(9), 2067–2076 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjs/s11734-021-00199-6 arXiv:2106.03119 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Jonsson, J., Sullivan, M., Hook, I., Basa, S., Carlberg, R., Conley, A., Fouchez, D., Howell, D.A., Perrett, K., Pritchet, C.: Constraining dark matter halo prop- erties using lensed SNLS supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 405, 535 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-29...

    2010

  33. [42]

    Astrophys

    Davis, T.M., et al.: The Effect of Peculiar Velocities on Supernova Cosmol- ogy. Astrophys. J. 741, 67 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/67 arXiv:1012.2912 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Ellis, G.F.R., Stoeger, W.: The ’fitting problem’ in cosmology. Class. Quant. Grav. 4, 1697–1729 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/4/6/025

    1987 doi

  35. [44]

    Annals Math

    Wilks, S.S.: The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses. Annals Math. Statist. 9(1), 60–62 (1938) https://doi.org/ 10.1214/aoms/1177732360

    1938

  36. [45]

    Nature Rev

    Algeri, S., Aalbers, J., Dundas Mor ˚ a, K., Conrad, J.: Searching for new phenom- ena with profile likelihood ratio tests. Nature Rev. Phys. 2(5), 245–252 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0169-5 arXiv:1911.10237 [physics.data-an]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Tsagas, C.G., Kadiltzoglou, M.I.: Deceleration parameter in tilted Friedmann universes. Phys. Rev. D92(4), 043515 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 27 92.043515 arXiv:1507.04266 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Tsagas, C.G.: The peculiar Jeans length. Eur. Phys. J. C 81(8), 753 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09515-9 arXiv:2103.15884 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Tsagas, C.G.: The deceleration parameter in ‘tilted’ universes: generalising the Friedmann background. Eur. Phys. J. C 82(6), 521 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1140/epjc/s10052-022-10452-4 arXiv:2112.04313 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Cam- bridge University Press, ??? (2012)

    Ellis, G.F.R., Maartens, R., MacCallum, M.A.H.: Relativistic Cosmology. Cam- bridge University Press, ??? (2012)

    2012

  41. [50]

    Tsagas, C.G., Challinor, A., Maartens, R.: Relativistic cosmology and large-scale structure. Phys. Rept. 465, 61–147 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2008.03.003 arXiv:0705.4397 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Past´ en, E., G´ alvez, S., C´ ardenas, V.H.: Approximations for the divergence of the reconstructed local large-scale structure velocity field and its possible implications for Cosmology. Phys. Dark Univ. 43, 101385 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dark.2023.101385 arXiv:230...

    2024

  43. [52]

    Clocchiatti, A., Rodr ´ ıguez, O., Morales, A.O., Cuevas-Tapia, B.: Global Anisotropies of Ω Λ (2024) arXiv:2406.00273 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  44. [53]

    Hu, J.P., Wang, Y.Y., Hu, J., Wang, F.Y.: Testing the cosmological principle with the Pantheon+ sample and the region-fitting method. Astron. Astrophys. 681, 88 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202347121 arXiv:2310.11727 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    McConville, R., Colg´ ain, E.O.: Anisotropic distance ladder in Pan- theon+supernovae. Phys. Rev. D 108(12), 123533 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.108.123533 arXiv:2304.02718 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Hu, J., Hu, J., Jia, X., Gao, B., Wang, F.: Testing cosmic anisotropy with Pad´ e approximations and the latest Pantheon+ sample. Astron. Astrophys. 689, 215 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450342 arXiv:2406.14827 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Cowell, J.A., Dhawan, S., Macpherson, H.J.: Potential signature of a quadrupolar hubble expansion in Pantheon+supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526(1), 1482–1494 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2788 arXiv:2212.13569 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [57]

    JCAP 11, 054 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/054 arXiv:2212.10328 [astro-ph.CO] 28

    Sorrenti, F., Durrer, R., Kunz, M.: The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data. JCAP 11, 054 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/054 arXiv:2212.10328 [astro-ph.CO] 28

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Perivolaropoulos, L.: Isotropy properties of the absolute luminosity magnitudes of SnIa in the Pantheon+ and SH0ES samples. Phys. Rev. D 108(6), 063509 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063509 arXiv:2305.12819 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Bengaly, C.A.P., Alcaniz, J.S., Pigozzo, C.: Testing the isotropy of cosmic acceler- ation with the Pantheon+ and SH0ES datasets: A cosmographic analysis. Phys. Rev. D 109(12), 123533 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123533 arXiv:2402.17741 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Tang, L., Lin, H.-N., Liu, L., Li, X.: Consistency of Pantheon+ supernovae with a large-scale isotropic universe*. Chin. Phys. C 47(12), 125101 (2023) https:// doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/acfaf0 arXiv:2309.11320 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Rameez, M., Sarkar, S.: Is there really a Hubble tension? Class. Quant. Grav. 38(15), 154005 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac0f39 arXiv:1911.06456 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Astrophys

    Scolnic, D.M., et al.: The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample. Astrophys. J. 859(2), 101 (2018) https://doi.org/ 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9bb arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Kalbouneh, B., Marinoni, C., Bel, J.: Multipole expansion of the local expansion rate. Phys. Rev. D 107(2), 023507 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.023507 arXiv:2210.11333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Sorrenti, F., Durrer, R., Kunz, M.: A local infall from a cosmographic analysis of Pantheon+ (2024) arXiv:2407.07002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Krishnan, C., Mohayaee, R., Colg´ ain, E.O., Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M., Yin, L.: Hints of FLR W breakdown from supernovae. Phys. Rev. D105(6), 063514 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063514 arXiv:2106.02532 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Zhai, Z., Percival, W.J.: Sample variance for supernovae distance measurements and the Hubble tension. Phys. Rev. D 106(10), 103527 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103527 arXiv:2207.02373 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Astrophys

    Javanmardi, B., Porciani, C., Kroupa, P., Pflamm-Altenburg, J.: Prob- ing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration traced by Type Ia supernovae. Astrophys. J. 810(1), 47 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/47 arXiv:1507.07560 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Luongo, O., Muccino, M., Colg´ ain, E.O., Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M., Yin, L.: Larger H0 values in the CMB dipole direction. Phys. Rev. D 105(10), 103510 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103510 arXiv:2108.13228 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Krishnan, C., Mohayaee, R., Colg´ ain, E.O., Sheikh-Jabbari, M.M., Yin, 29 L.: Does Hubble tension signal a breakdown in FLR W cosmology? Class. Quant. Grav. 38(18), 184001 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81 arXiv:2105.09790 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Aluri, P.K., et al.: Is the observable Universe consistent with the cosmological principle? Class. Quant. Grav. 40(9), 094001 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6382/acbefc arXiv:2207.05765 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Colin, J., Mohayaee, R., Rameez, M., Sarkar, S.: A response to Rubin\& Heitlauf: ”Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs still point to yes” (2019) arXiv:1912.04257 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Migkas, K.: Galaxy clusters as probes of cosmic isotropy (2024) arXiv:2406.01752 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Rubin, D., et al.: Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework (2023) arXiv:2311.12098 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Vincenzi, M., et al.: The Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program: Cosmological Analysis and Systematic Uncertainties (2024) arXiv:2401.02945 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Efstathiou, G.: Evolving Dark Energy or Supernovae Systematics? (2024) arXiv:2408.07175 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Rigault, M., et al.: ZTF SN Ia DR2: Overview (2024) arXiv:2409.04346 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Abell, P.A., et al.: LSST Science Book, Version 2.0 (2009) arXiv:0912.0201 [astro- ph.IM]

    2009 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Nature Meth

    Virtanen, P., et al.: SciPy 1.0–Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Com- puting in Python. Nature Meth. 17, 261 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41592-019-0686-2 arXiv:1907.10121 [cs.MS]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Nature585(7825), 357–362 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

    Harris, C.R., et al.: Array programming with NumPy. Nature585(7825), 357–362 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

    2020 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Astrophys

    Price-Whelan, A.M., et al.: The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package*. Astrophys. J. 935(2), 167 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac7c74 arXiv:2206.14220 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Computing in Science & Engineering 9(3), 90–95 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    Hunter, J.D.: Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering 9(3), 90–95 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  73. [82]

    4106649 30

    Garrett, J.D.: garrettj403/SciencePlots (2021) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 4106649 30

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    JCAP 05, 008 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/008 arXiv:2010.06534 [astro-ph.CO]

    Heinesen, A.: Multipole decomposition of the general luminosity distance ’Hubble law’ – a new framework for observational cosmology. JCAP 05, 008 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/008 arXiv:2010.06534 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Astro- phys

    Parnovsky, S.L., Parnowski, A.S.: Yet another sample of RFGC galaxies. Astro- phys. Space Sci. 343, 747–754 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-012-1267-3 arXiv:1210.0895 [astro-ph.CO] Appendix A Quadrupole in the Hubble expansion Ref. [83] provides a general, background-ind...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.