Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

The fallacies of LCDM falsifications

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The standard model of cosmology has not been falsified; the Hubble and growth tensions trace to systematics, not new physics.

desk verdict A useful but flawed review essay defending ΛCDM; the Sec 4.8 self-contradiction needs fixing before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06244 v1 pith:JAETR26R submitted 2025-04-27 physics.hist-ph astro-ph.CO

Alain Blanchard This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phastro-ph.CO
keywords Lambda-CDMHubbletensionS8Popperianfalsificationcosmologicalconstantdarkenergysystematicuncertaintiescosmology
topics Dark MatterThe Hubble TensionDark Energy
open problems Dark MatterThe 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 review argues that the widely publicised 'crises' of the standard cosmological model Lambda-CDM—the Hubble tension, the S8 growth tension, small-scale structure problems, and large-scale anomalies—do not amount to falsifications in the strict Popperian sense. Each discrepancy, the author contends, can plausibly be traced to methodological choices, observational systematics, or an incomplete understanding of baryonic physics, and several have already weakened as data improved. If that is right, Lambda-CDM remains the most predictive and best-corroborated cosmological framework available, and the Hubble tension is best treated as an open calibration question rather than as grounds for abandoning the model. The paper therefore defends the standard model against what it sees as premature falsification claims.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is Popperian falsifiability as a criterion of testability, applied to cosmology. It defines what counts as a genuine falsification: a specific test that fails, where the failure cannot be absorbed by rational auxiliary adjustments (Cepheid calibration, selection functions, baryonic feedback) unless those adjustments yield new, risky predictions. The paper applies this criterion through statistical tension estimates (Gaussian tension between datasets) and through the distinction between dark-matter-only simulations and the full ΛCDM+baryonic-physics target. The Hubble constant and S8 are the two quantitative battlefields where this machinery is exercised.

What would settle it

A decisive falsifier would be an independent, systematics-controlled measurement of the Hubble constant (such as a gravitational-wave standard-siren measurement with sub-percent precision) that lands firmly at approximately 73 km/s/Mpc while the CMB-inferred value remains at approximately 67, with no plausible calibration bias remaining; a low-redshift S8 measurement that remains at 0.75 or below with percent-level precision would similarly revive the growth tension as a real contradiction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that none of the reported tensions constitutes a decisive falsification of ΛCDM. It examines each anomaly in turn: the ~4.6σ Hubble tension between SH0ES and Planck+DESI can be explained by a bias in the Cepheid distance scale; the S8 growth tension has dropped from ~3σ (KiDS) to 2.2σ (Planck PR4) and to 1.3σ for the joint DES+KiDS estimate; small-scale 'crises' rest on dark-matter-only simulations that ignore the strong baryonic feedback required by the overcooling problem; and large-scale anomalies such as source dipoles are subject to selection-function uncertainties at the $10^{-3}$ level. Under the paper's Popperian criterion, a theory is falsified only when a specific reproducible test fails, and auxiliary adjustments are legitimate if they generate new testable predictions. By that standard, ΛCDM has passed its tests and no alternative model offers comparable corroboration.

Load-bearing premise

The argument presupposes that a statistically significant discrepancy does not falsify ΛCDM unless every plausible auxiliary hypothesis has been excluded, and that adjusting auxiliary hypotheses is legitimate when the adjustment generates new testable predictions; if a reader considers a 5-sigma tension already sufficient to falsify the core model, the central claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ΛCDM is not falsified, astronomers should focus on measuring and removing systematics in the distance ladder rather than building new physics to reconcile the Hubble tension.
  • The S8 tension, at 1.3σ in the joint DES/KiDS analysis, should no longer be cited as evidence that structure growth is suppressed relative to ΛCDM.
  • Small-scale problems (core-cusp, missing satellites, satellite planes) should be reanalysed with full baryonic-physics simulations before being counted as model failures.
  • A confirmed detection of dynamical dark energy in DESI BAO or supernova data would be a genuine falsification, even though it would refine rather than dismantle the ΛCDM framework.
  • Future model-independent measurements of H0 from gravitational-wave standard sirens or other non-ladder methods will provide the decisive Popperian test that the author says is currently missing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the author's standard for falsification is taken literally, it may become impossible to falsify any mature theory, because a sufficiently motivated auxiliary hypothesis can almost always be found; the paper's own principle therefore functions more as a counsel of patience than as a sharp test.
  • The argument implicitly predicts that the next decisive advances in cosmology will come from systematics-controlled measurements (standard sirens, improved Cepheid calibrations, baryonic feedback calibrations) rather than from new theoretical models.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same systematic-error budget to the alternative models that claim to resolve the Hubble tension; the paper suggests the SH0ES bias hypothesis is as good statistically as the best such models, but does not spell out which auxiliary assumptions of those models would fail first.
  • Under the author's own logic, the cleanest route to a genuine falsification would be a high-significance detection of evolving dark energy in BAO/distance data that survives full interrogation of selection and calibration effects—though even that would be a revision of the energy budget, not a collapse of the CDM structure-formation picture.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper, positioned in physics.hist-ph, argues that the widely discussed tensions of the Lambda-CDM model—most prominently the Hubble tension, the S8 structure-growth tension, small-scale 'crises', and the large-scale dipole anomaly—do not amount to definitive Popperian falsifications. The author reviews the successes of Lambda-CDM, including CMB and BAO consistency, and contends that many reported discrepancies can be plausibly attributed to methodological choices, observational systematics, baryonic feedback, or insufficiently understood auxiliary hypotheses. The central conclusion is that Lambda-CDM remains the most corroborated cosmological framework and that the Hubble tension, in particular, is best viewed as an open calibration question rather than a reason to abandon the model.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would be a valuable counterweight to the 'cosmology in crisis' narrative, emphasizing the difference between statistical tension and conclusive falsification. The manuscript has real strengths: it correctly stresses that small-scale problems are often judged with a posteriori statistics and pure dark-matter simulations, it updates the S8 discussion with the recent KiDS-DES joint constraint and Planck PR4 result, and it highlights the need for independent H0 measurements from gravitational-wave standard sirens. However, the significance is substantially undercut by an internal contradiction in Sec. 4.8, by the absence of any explicit criterion for what would count as a 'definitive falsification', and by the reliance on the author's own earlier work for several key numerical reassurances. These issues leave the paper's universal negative conclusion unsupported as written, though they are local and in principle fixable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.8] The passage on dynamical dark energy is internally contradictory and directly contradicts the paper's conclusion. The text says that DESI's BAO signal has 'confirmed' the existence of dynamic dark energy and that 'If confirmed, this would imply a falsification of the ΛCDM', only to add that it 'would refine one of its least understood components' rather than fundamentally challenge the model. The conclusion (§5) then states that the tensions 'do not yet constitute definitive falsifications'. The paper cannot have it both ways: either the DESI evidence is a falsifying instance, which overturns the central claim, or it is not definitive, in which case the paper must explain why the same permissive logic does not also dismiss the H0 tension. The word 'confirmed' also overstates the epistemic status of DESI BAO results, which the cited reference itself frames as evidence to be confirmed.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 5] The central argument relies on a Duhem-Quine-style principle but never defines a falsification threshold. The paper dismisses a 4.56σ tension in H0 (§4.6) and a large S8 discrepancy (§4.3) as non-definitive, yet it does not state what combination of significance, reproducibility, and exclusion of auxiliary hypotheses would turn a tension into a 'definitive falsification'. Without such a criterion, the claim that none of the tensions 'yet constitute definitive falsifications' is unfalsifiable, because any observation can in principle be absorbed by invoking systematics or auxiliary physics. This is not merely a philosophical preference: the author's own Sec. 4.8 supplies a concrete case in which an observation is first labeled a falsification and then re-labeled a refinement.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.2] The dipole-anomaly estimate is asserted without derivation. The text claims that if the universe is filled with random spheres of 10 h−1 Mpc, density fluctuations would be 'of the order of few 10−3, comparable or larger than the CMB dipole'. This does not follow from Eq. (2), which gives the rms density contrast on that scale. A source-count dipole is determined by the dipole component of the density field over the survey window, not by the cell variance on 10 Mpc scales, and the cross-correlation between the observer's motion and the clustering of sources is an additional subtlety. A quantitative calculation or a supporting reference is required before this argument can dismiss the reported kinematic-dipole excess.
  4. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 4.5] Two of the paper's key numerical reassurances come from the author's own earlier analysis rather than from independent verification. The claim that the S8 tension 'appears to no longer exist' is supported in part by Eq. (7), taken from Blanchard et al. (2024), and the statement that a Cepheid calibration bias is 'as likely as the best alternative models' is likewise a model-comparison result from the same paper. Such claims are legitimate as cited results, but the review should flag that these are the author's own model-dependent assessments and are not yet consensus conclusions. As written, the argument gives the impression of independent evidence when at least part of the load is being carried by a single group's analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.6] Equation (8) is garbled as typeset: it has mismatched parentheses and the denominator is unclear. It should be written as (H̃0 − H0)/(σ² + σ_SH0ES²)^(1/2) or state explicitly which quantities are being combined.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] There is a duplicated and broken phrase: 'no three-dimensional catalogu e of galaxy distribution no three-dimensional catalogues were available to study the distribution of galaxies (only projected distribution was well studied)'. This should be cleaned up.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.2] The sentence 'one would expected fluctuations of the order of few 10−3' contains a grammatical error ('expected' should be 'expect') and the wording 'few 10−3' would read better as 'a few × 10−3'.
  4. [Sec. 4.3] The acronym 'Kids' should be 'KiDS' (Kilo-Degree Survey); the same section also refers to 'the tension with Kids' but the notation 3×2pt is not defined for the reader.
  5. [Abstract / body] The abstract promises a discussion of alternative models such as MOND, but the body of the paper does not return to MOND after the introduction; either the abstract should be adjusted to match the actual content or the MOND discussion should be integrated into the text.
  6. [Sec. 4.5] The relation between the Cepheid-bias hypothesis and the cited Perivolaropoulos (2024) result is not fully stated: the latter is described as showing that distance-ladder measurements systematically differ from non-distance-ladder methods, which is a different claim from a specific miscalibration of Cepheids. The logical connection should be made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; minor self-citation in the S8 and H0 sections is corroborative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a philosophical review rather than a derivation, so the circularity test asks whether the conclusion is forced by the paper's own definitions or by self-citation. The central claim—that the reported tensions are not definitive Popperian falsifications—is an application of the methodological criterion in Sec 2 (a theory is falsified only by a specific, reproducible test, and revisions are ad hoc unless they generate new testable predictions). No equation in the paper reduces a prediction to a fitted input. The self-citations to Blanchard et al. 2024 in Secs 4.3 and 4.5 provide a combined S8 value and a model comparison favoring Cepheid calibration bias, but they are corroborative rather than load-bearing: the S8 discussion also relies on Planck PR4 (Tristram et al. 2024) and the DES+KiDS joint value, and the H0 discussion also relies on Freedman et al. 2024, Li et al. 2024, and a historical argument about prior revisions of H0 measurements. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the author's prior work. The only notable internal problem is in Sec 4.8: DESI's dynamical dark energy is described as 'confirmed' and said to imply falsification of ΛCDM ('This would imply a falsification of the ΛCDM'), while the conclusion states that the tensions 'do not yet constitute definitive falsifications in the Popperian sense.' This is a threshold/consistency defect in the review's own language, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its inputs. The circularity burden is therefore low, though the review is not fully independent of the author's prior quantitative conclusions, giving a score of 2.

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

The review contains no new fits or invented entities; numbers are carried from the cited literature. The central argument rests on philosophical and domain assumptions about how cosmological theories are tested, and on the reliability of CMB calculations.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Popperian falsifiability, requiring a specific reproducible test, is the appropriate standard for judging cosmological models.
    Invoked from Sec 2 onward; the entire review's conclusion that tensions are not falsifications depends on this normative standard.
  • domain assumption Auxiliary hypotheses (systematics, baryonic feedback) may legitimately protect the model if they are not merely retroactive and lead to testable predictions.
    Stated in Sec 2 as the condition under which model refinements preserve epistemic value; applied to Cepheid calibration in Sec 4.5 and baryonic physics in Sec 4.4.
  • domain assumption CMB fluctuation calculations are robust because they operate in linear perturbation theory and different codes agree.
    Sec 3.1 uses this to establish the CMB side of the tensions as secure and to set up the comparison with late-universe measurements.
  • standard math Gaussian statistics can quantify the significance of tensions between measurements.
    Secs 4.5 and 4.6 use equations (8) through (10), which assume Gaussian errors and independence, to convert discrepancies into sigma values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fallacies of LCDM falsifications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JAETR26R

@misc{pith2026250506244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fallacies of LCDM falsifications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JAETR26R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06244}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, numerous arguments have emerged suggesting that the LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model may be inconsistent with observational data, requiring more or less radical revisions. Notable examples include the Hubble tension, the discrepancy between early and late-universe measurements of the Hubble constant, as well as tensions in measurements of cosmic structure growth. These issues have led some to question the validity of the LCDM framework and consider possible modifications or alternative models. However, upon closer inspection, many of these critiques stem from methodological or interpretive disagreements rather than from clear falsifications in the strict Popperian sense. Karl Popper proposed that scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable; in other words, a theory should be rejected if it fails a specific, reproducible test. Yet, many of the alleged inconsistencies within LCDM, while statistically significant, are not definitive falsifications but rather indicators of areas needing refinement or more complex modeling within the same framework. Thus, I review the recent claims about LCDM's limitations and analyze why they often reflect individual biases or philosophical preferences, rather than rigorous scientific falsifications. For example, alternative cosmological models such as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) or models incorporating new physics like quintessence or modified gravity are sometimes advocated based on theoretical appeal rather than direct evidence from critical tests. In many cases, these arguments for falsifying LCDM reveal more about subjective interpretations of data than about concrete observational contradictions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Growth, geometry, and early-universe split of the matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm m}$

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Splitting Ω_m into geometry, growth, and early-universe regimes yields mutually compatible values, yet ΔΩ_m^{geo,early} is 2σ from zero under combined DES, Planck (scale-cut), DESI, Pantheon+, and RSD data.

  2. Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis and WIMP Dark Matter Freeze-Out as Probes of Yukawa Cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using BBN and WIMP relic density, the authors constrain the Yukawa gravity coupling α to about -0.017 to 0.018, with the lithium discrepancy still unexplained.

  3. Background dynamics and observational constraints of flat and non-flat $\Lambda(t)$CDM models from $H(z)$ and DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    With DESI DR2 BAO and cosmic-chronometer H(z) data, the time-varying vacuum parameter alpha in Lambda(t)CDM is constrained to be consistent with zero, favoring standard flat LambdaCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aalbers J., et al., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109k2010A 109, 112010

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.112010 2024

  2. [2]

    G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...02..021A 2025, 021

    Adame A. G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025JCAP...02..021A 2025, 021

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/02/021 2025

  3. [3]

    k., et al., 2023, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023CQGra..40i4001A 40, 094001

    Aluri P. k., et al., 2023, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023CQGra..40i4001A 40, 094001

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc 2023

  4. [4]

    E., Zennaro M., Contreras S., Chen A., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.109A 678, A109

    Aric \`o G., Angulo R. E., Zennaro M., Contreras S., Chen A., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.109A 678, A109

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346539 2023

  5. [5]

    A., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...264..365B 264, 365

    Blanchard A., Valls-Gabaud D., Mamon G. A., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...264..365B 264, 365

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Blanchard A., H \'e loret J.-Y., Ili \'c S., Lamine B., Tutusaus I., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.117170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..32B 7, 32

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.117170 2024

  7. [7]

    arXiv:2503.14454

    Calabrese E., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314454C p. arXiv:2503.14454

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14454 2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv:2502.15279

    Carr B., Kuhnel F., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.15279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250215279C p. arXiv:2502.15279

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.15279 2025

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:2411.12022

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241112022D p. arXiv:2411.12022

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dark Energy Survey and Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2305.17173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..36D 6, 36

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Di Valentino E., et al., 2021, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021CQGra..38o3001D 38, 153001

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Maddox S

    Efstathiou G., Sutherland W. J., Maddox S. J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1038/348705a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.348..705E 348, 705

    1990 doi

  5. [13]

    Fairbairn M., Kainulainen K., Markkanen T., Nurmi S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/04/005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JCAP...04..005F 2019, 005

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Wolf W

    Ferreira P. G., Wolf W. J., Read J., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.06095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250106095F p. arXiv:2501.06095

    2025 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    L., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.169F 1, 0169

    Freedman W. L., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.169F 1, 0169

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Madore B

    Freedman W. L., Madore B. F., Jang I. S., Hoyt T. J., Lee A. J., Owens K. A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240806153F p. arXiv:2408.06153

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    S., Zel'dovich Y

    Gershtein S. S., Zel'dovich Y. B., 1966, JETPL, 4, 174

    1966

  10. [18]

    Heymans C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A.140H 646, A140

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Hu W., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...506..485H 506, 485

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    Ibata R. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.493...62I 493, 62

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Loeb A., 2014, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhLB..736..142I 736, 142

    Ijjas A., Steinhardt P. J., Loeb A., 2014, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.07.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhLB..736..142I 736, 142

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Kroupa P., et al., 2023, in School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics and Gravity. p. 231 ( @eprint arXiv 2309.11552 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2309.11552

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lemos P., Lewis A., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107j3505L 107, 103505

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Marshall P

    Li T., Collett T. E., Marshall P. J., Erickson S., Enzi W., Oldham L., Ballard D., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241016171L p. arXiv:2410.16171

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    M., Clowes R

    Lopez A. M., Clowes R. G., Williger G. M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.14894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240914894L p. arXiv:2409.14894

    2024 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    arXiv:2503.14452

    Louis T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250314452L p. arXiv:2503.14452

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Loureiro A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A..56L 665, A56

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Novikov E

    Lubimov V. A., Novikov E. G., Nozik V. Z., Tretyakov E. F., Kosik V. S., 1980, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90873-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980PhLB...94..266L 94, 266

    1980 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Efstathiou G., Sutherland W

    Maddox S. J., Efstathiou G., Sutherland W. J., Loveday J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/242.1.43P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.242P..43M 242, 43

    1990 doi

  22. [30]

    Misiaszek M., Rossi N., 2024, @doi [Symmetry] 10.3390/sym16020201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Symm...16..201M 16, 201

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Muttoni N., Laghi D., Tamanini N., Marsat S., Izquierdo-Villalba D., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108d3543M 108, 043543

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/183911 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263L...1P 263, L1

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    Peebles P. J. E., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...284..439P 284, 439

    1984 doi

  26. [34]

    Peebles P. J. E., Yu J. T., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...162..815P 162, 815

    1970 doi

  27. [35]

    Perivolaropoulos L., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110l3518P 110, 123518

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Perivolaropoulos L., Skara F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NewAR..9501659P 95, 101659

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ratra B., Peebles P. J. E., 1988, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988PhRvD..37.3406R 37, 3406

    1988 doi

  30. [38]

    Rhee G., Valenzuela O., Klypin A., Holtzman J., Moorthy B., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617.1059R 617, 1059

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    Riess A. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    arXiv:2311.12098

    Rubin D., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.12098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231112098R p. arXiv:2311.12098

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sawala T., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01856-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..481S 7, 481

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Helly J., Jenkins A., Racz G., Schaller M., Schaye J., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250203515S p

    Sawala T., Teeriaho M., Frenk C. S., Helly J., Jenkins A., Racz G., Schaller M., Schaye J., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250203515S p. arXiv:2502.03515

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    F., S \'a nchez A

    Sch \"o neberg N., Abell \'a n G. F., S \'a nchez A. P., Witte S. J., Poulin V., Lesgourgues J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.07.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhR...984....1S 984, 1

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Tristram M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..37T 682, A37

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Uzeirbegovic E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.3775U 535, 3775

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    G., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..891V 3, 891

    Verde L., Treu T., Riess A. G., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0902-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..891V 3, 891

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    White S. D. M., Frenk C. S., Davis M., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...274L...1W 274, L1

    1983 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Huchra J

    de Lapparent V., Geller M. J., Huchra J. P., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184625 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302L...1D 302, L1

    1986 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.