Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Challenges to a sharp change in $G$ as a solution to the Hubble tension

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A proposed 10% drop in G about 130 million years ago to resolve the Hubble tension is contradicted by the Sun's age, Earth's climate, and the geological day-count record.

desk verdict A multi-pronged, honest critique of the G step model that lands even with its acknowledged soft spots; deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15301 v4 pith:YKLOYQBR submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.SR

Indranil Banik , Harry Desmond , Nick Samaras This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.SR
keywords gravitationHubbletensionvariableGstellarevolutionhelioseismologycyclostratigraphySnowballEarthTypeIasupernovae
topics The Hubble Tension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests a proposed fix for the Hubble tension: a sudden ~10% drop in the gravitational constant G about 130 million years ago that would make distant supernovae intrinsically brighter and thus stretch inferred distances to the Hubble flow. The authors show that the same step would have altered the Sun, Earth, and Moon in ways independent observations rule out. Because stellar luminosity scales roughly as $G^{5}$.6, a slightly higher G in the past would make the Sun burn two-thirds of its fuel, pushing its helioseismic age (the age from its internal oscillations) far above the 4.567 Gyr meteorite age. The step would also drop Earth's temperature by about 10%, likely triggering a Snowball Earth, yet none occurred in the last 500 million years. And the number of days per year recorded by corals and sediment cycles shows only smooth tidal evolution, not a sudden 10% jump.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by scaling laws linking G to observables: stellar luminosity close to L ∝ $G^{5}$.6, Earth's blackbody temperature T⊕ ∝ $G^{1}$.9 after including orbital expansion with angular-momentum conservation, year length ∝ $G^{{-2}}$ while day length stays nearly constant because Earth's radius changes little, and lunar tidal stress ∝ $G^{4}$ from R ∝ 1/G and tidal force ∝ G/$R^{3}$. These relations translate the required ~10% step in G into concrete predictions for helioseismology, the geological day-count record, and the Earth–Moon tidal history, which are then checked against data.

What would settle it

A high-precision cyclostratigraphic record spanning the 100–200 Myr period that resolves the annual day count to better than a few percent would settle the matter: a smooth trend would falsify the GSM, while a sharp 10% drop in the reported day length at roughly 130 Myr ago would support it. Independently, a helioseismic solar age above 5.5 Gyr would confirm the faster fuel consumption the GSM demands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the G-step model cannot survive contact with Solar, terrestrial, and lunar observations. Taking the model's premise that G was about 5–10% larger until roughly 130 Myr ago and then fell abruptly, the authors derive three independent contradictions: the Sun would be too luminous over most of its history and thus appear older than 5.5 Gyr by helioseismology, whereas the measured age is below 5.1 Gyr; the Earth would have been sent into a runaway planetary glaciation by the combined drop in solar flux and orbital expansion, but the geological record shows no Snowball Earth in the past 500 Myr; and the length of a year relative to the day would have jumped by about 10%, which the cyclostratigraphic and geochronometric record of days per year does not display. The same higher-G era would make every main-sequence star burn faster, so the oldest stars would come out about 3 Gyr younger than the ages the Planck cosmology requires, leaving a gap with no stars from the first 3 Gyr of cosmic history. The paper presents these as significant challenges that any viable model of a sharp G transition would need to overcome.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the assumption that the geological record of days per year is continuous and precise enough across the 100–200 Myr data gap to rule out a sharp 10% jump, and that the L ∝ $G^{5}$.6 solar scaling applies without a full recalibration of solar models for a time-varying G; the paper acknowledges both caveats.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, a sharp universal change in G cannot resolve the Hubble tension without also breaking the Solar System and stellar observations.
  • Any surviving model would need a screening mechanism that hides the change inside the Milky Way, as the paper suggests, so that stars and planets see a constant G while distant supernovae see a different value.
  • Distance-ladder techniques that rely on stellar luminosities would become mutually inconsistent if G changed at the required epoch, which would show up as distance-dependent offsets in Cepheid, TRGB, and surface brightness fluctuation distances.
  • The tightness of the radial acceleration relation, with no residual correlation with distance, already argues against a transition in stellar mass-to-light ratio inside the galaxy sample.
  • Cosmic chronometer reconstructions, which recover H0 within 1 km/s/Mpc of Planck, would have to be coincidentally immune to the faster stellar evolution the GSM predicts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same scaling argument could be applied to any sharp-transition variant, including a step as recent as 20–40 Mpc: such a step would sit inside the Cepheid calibration zone and should show up as distance-dependent residuals in SN standardization and galaxy scaling relations.
  • New cyclostratigraphic data covering the 100–200 Myr gap at high resolution could turn the current day-count tension into a clean falsification or a positive detection of a 10% jump.
  • The CMB and BAO constraint on pre-recombination G already limits the step size to a few percent, so combining that bound with helioseismic and asteroseismic limits on other Sun-like stars (for example KIC 7970740) could sharpen the exclusion well beyond the Solar System.
  • A model with a gradual, secular change in G would be constrained far more tightly by the same solar and asteroseismic observations than by the CMB alone, suggesting that future asteroseismic surveys are a high-value test for any time-varying-G cosmology.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper examines the G step model (GSM) proposed as a solution to the Hubble tension, in which G decreased abruptly ~130 Myr ago, and tests its implications for the Sun, the Earth, and stellar age indicators. The authors show that under the GSM the solar luminosity would have been ~30% higher in the past, which would inflate the helioseismic age and plausibly trigger a Snowball Earth; that the length of the year would jump discontinuously relative to the length of the day, in tension with geochronometry and cyclostratigraphy; and that old stars would appear ~3 Gyr younger than standard ages, conflicting with cosmic chronometers and the observed ages of the oldest stellar populations. They conclude that the GSM faces significant challenges and discuss screening-based alternatives that may avoid them.

Significance. The paper is a timely, readable challenge to a specific proposal for the Hubble tension. Its main value is that it confronts the GSM with several externally anchored datasets (helioseismology, meteorite ages, snowball-Earth absence, geological day counts, cosmic chronometers, and recent CMB constraints) rather than relying on the model's internal consistency alone. The CMB and day-count arguments are largely independent of the uncertain solar evolution calculation, and the paper is appropriately transparent about its limitations, explicitly stating in Section 4 that no full recalibration of solar models with time-varying G was performed and that the statistical treatment is not a full goodness-of-fit comparison. If the solar argument can be made robust by a recalibrated stellar model, the paper would constitute a strong multi-pronged exclusion; as it stands, it provides a valuable set of order-of-magnitude challenges that model-builders should address.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §4] The helioseismic-age argument, one of the paper's main quantitative pillars, assumes that the homology scaling L⊙∝G^5.6 applies for a star whose past includes a step change in G. This is not established: a sudden change in G modifies the hydrostatic structure and nuclear burning in a time-dependent way, and the paper itself acknowledges in Section 4 that 'we did not do a full recalibration of the model for the Sun with a time-varying G'. The specific statements that the Sun would have consumed 2/3 rather than 1/2 of its fuel and would have a helioseismic age above 5.5 Gyr therefore carry an unquantified systematic uncertainty. Since this is the most precise quantitative constraint in the paper, the authors should either perform such a recalibration with a stellar evolution code or explicitly downgrade the claim to a scaling-based indication rather than a firm constraint.
  2. [§2.3, Figure 2] The day-count test is weakened by the gap in the geological record at 100-200 Myr ago, which is exactly the epoch of the proposed transition. The text acknowledges this, but the statement that 'quite unusual tidal evolution of the Earth-Moon system would be required' is an extrapolation from pre-transition trends and the present lunar recession rate, not a quantitative model of LOY/LOD with a step. To make this argument a robust constraint, the authors should model the tidal evolution of the Earth-Moon system, allow for a step in G at the transition epoch, fit the model to the available geochronometric and cyclostratigraphic data, and report the posterior or likelihood for the step amplitude. Without this, the constraint is suggestive rather than conclusive.
  3. [§3.1] The stellar-age argument converts the L∝G^5.6 scaling into a global '3 Gyr age gap' for the oldest stars, but the observable stellar age distribution is not simply the constant-G age shifted by a fixed amount: stars formed over a range of redshifts, and the effect of a G step depends on formation time and subsequent evolution. The paper's connection to JWST galaxies at z>14 is qualitative. A quantitative prediction of the expected age distribution under the GSM, compared with globular cluster and field-star age determinations, is needed before this argument can serve as a firm exclusion. This does not affect the other independent arguments, but it should be framed as an indicative tension rather than a measured discrepancy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.3] The abstract states that the length of a year would have 'abruptly increased by about 10%', while Section 2.3 derives this value for a 'minimum plausible 5% drop' in G. Since the cosmological requirement in Equation (1) and Figure 1 corresponds to a roughly 10% higher G before the transition (and hence a ~20% longer year under LOY∝G^-2), the text should state consistently which G-drop amplitude is used for each quantitative estimate.
  2. [§2.2] The derivation of T⊕∝G^1.9 is only given in a footnote; because this scaling is the basis of the glaciation argument, it would be helpful to show the steps explicitly (L⊙∝G^5.6, r∝G^-1, and T⊕∝(L/r^2)^1/4) in the main text.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption mentions 'solid lines' representing models but does not identify which curves correspond to which model or data source; please expand the caption so the reader can distinguish data points from model curves and understand the red arrow and dashed line.
  4. [§4] The caveats in Section 4 are welcome, but the text explicitly says the tests 'do not incorporate full goodness-of-fit comparison or hypothesis testing' and 'may be considered statistically primitive'; the numbered conclusions (i)-(vi) should be headed with this caveat so readers do not mistake them for formal exclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

The derivation is self-contained and externally anchored; no significant circularity was found.

full rationale

The paper targets the G step model (GSM) proposed by Marra & Perivolaropoulos and Perivolaropoulos & Skara, not by the present authors. The constraints used—helioseismic age (Bétrisey et al. 2024), meteorite ages (Connelly et al. 2012), cyclostratigraphy and geochronometry (de Winter et al. 2020; Huang et al. 2024), lunar laser ranging (Williams & Boggs 2016), and the absence of Snowball Earth episodes in the last 500 Myr—are external observational results, not derived from or fitted to the GSM. The L⊙∝G^5.6 scaling is taken from degl'Innocenti et al. (1996), an independent stellar-structure calculation, and the paper even checks robustness against the shallower G^4 scaling from Adams (2008) and Davis et al. (2012). No parameter is fitted to the helioseismic age or to the day-count data to make the GSM fail; the predictions follow from the model's own premise of a roughly 10% drop in G. The paper explicitly admits its main limitations in Section 4: 'we did not do a full recalibration of the model for the Sun with a time-varying G' and 'a gap in the geological data 100−200 Myr ago prevents a clearer assessment' of the sharp day-count change. These are honest caveats, not circular steps. Self-citations (e.g., Banik 2016 for snowball Earth, Desmond et al. 2019 for the screening alternative, and Stiskalek & Desmond 2023 for radial acceleration relation residuals) are either to reviews, to an alternative model, or to analyses of external data; none defines the target result or is the sole support for a central claim. There is no self-definitional equation, no fitted input renamed as prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The central derivation chain—G step to higher past solar luminosity, greater fuel consumption, and thus a helioseismic age mismatch—is a straightforward application of external stellar physics to an externally proposed model. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The paper itself introduces no new free parameters or entities; all constraints come from prior measurements and published scaling relations. The load-bearing axioms are the validity and applicability of these external results.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Solar luminosity scaling L⊙ ∝ G^5.6 (degl'Innocenti et al. 1996) applies over the Sun's history.
    Used in Section 2.1 to derive the helioseismic age mismatch. The paper does not recalculate this scaling.
  • domain assumption Earth's climate would enter a planetary glaciation due to ice-albedo feedback after a >5% drop in insolation.
    Invoked in Section 2.2, based on Budyko 1969 and Sellers 1973 models.
  • domain assumption Cyclostratigraphy provides a reliable continuous record of the number of days per year over the last several hundred Myr, including the 100-200 Myr gap.
    The paper acknowledges a gap in Section 2.3, so this assumption is partially load-bearing and explicitly flagged.
  • domain assumption The age of the Sun is precisely known to be 4.567 Gyr from meteorite dating (Connelly et al. 2012).
    Used to compare with helioseismic age in Section 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Challenges to a sharp change in $G$ as a solution to the Hubble tension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKLOYQBR

@misc{pith2026241115301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Challenges to a sharp change in $G$ as a solution to the Hubble tension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKLOYQBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15301}
}
abstract

It has been proposed that the gravitational constant $G$ abruptly decreased around 130 Myr ago, making Type Ia supernovae (SNe) in the Hubble flow intrinsically brighter than those in host galaxies with Cepheid distances. This would make Hubble flow SNe more distant, causing redshifts to rise slower with distance, potentially solving the Hubble tension. We explore a wide range of unattractive consequences of this ``$G$ step model'' (GSM). We find that since the luminosities of Sun-like stars scale as approximately $G^{5.6}$, the Solar luminosity would have dropped substantially 130 Myr ago in this scenario, likely pushing Earth into a planetary glaciation. However, there was no Snowball Earth episode in the last 500 Myr. The GSM also implies that the length of a year would have abruptly increased by about 10%, but the number of days per year has evolved broadly continuously according to geochronometry and cyclostratigraphy. The GSM would considerably alter stellar evolution, causing the Sun to have exhausted about 2/3 of its fuel supply rather than 1/2. This would make the Sun's helioseismic age exceed that of the oldest meteorite samples, but these agree excellently in practice. The expected age of the Universe also agrees well with that of the oldest Galactic stars assuming constant $G$. The GSM however implies these stars are younger, creating a lack of stars from the first 3 Gyr of cosmic history. These arguments pose significant challenges to models seeking to resolve the Hubble tension through a transition in $G$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of constraints on and requirements of the GSM. The black line shows the dependence of the luminosity of a Type Ia SN on 𝐺 in units of the terrestrial value 𝐺0 (see figure 1 of Zhao, Wright & Li 2018). This calculation accounts for changes in the shape of the light curve (Wright & Li 2018), which impacts the standardized SN luminosity 𝐿 that enters cosmological analyses. Following appendix B of Desmond et … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the LOD from geochronometry and cyclostratigraphy as a function of lookback time, assuming a fixed LOY. The results shown here are thus inversely proportional to the observable quantity LOY/LOD, which is found from counting the number of daily cycles per annual cycle. In the GSM, the apparent LOD would have abruptly decreased by ≳ 10% about 130 Myr ago (dashed red line), as indicated by the downward red… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Can Distance Duality Violation Save Late-time Solutions to the Hubble Tension?

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

    For fixed sound-horizon and supernova calibrations, no late-time modification—even one violating cosmic distance duality—can resolve the Hubble tension, because the required ~8-10% CDDR violation is excluded by BAO, c...

  2. The effect of the gravitational constant variation on the phase of gravitational waves

    gr-qc 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA data, the phase correction from a varying gravitational constant is undetectable today, and constraints would improve only as the square root of the distance-times-SNR product.

  3. The Hubble tension: A decade review

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Pure early or late fixes to the Hubble tension are tightly constrained; remaining options are combined early-late interacting dark energy or new physics at the local-to-homogeneous transition.

  4. Hubble Tension and the G-step Model: Re-examination of Recent Constraints on Modified Local Physics

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper argues that the G-step model remains a viable solution to the Hubble tension by widening error bars, adopting a weaker luminosity-gravity scaling, and reinterpreting Earth history and distance-ladder data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C., 2008, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JCAP...08..010A 2008, 010

    Adams F. C., 2008, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JCAP...08..010A 2008, 010

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010 2008

  2. [2]

    Alestas G., Antoniou I., Perivolaropoulos L., 2021, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe7100366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Univ....7..366A 7, 366

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7100366 2021

  3. [3]

    S., Tully R

    Anand G. S., Tully R. B., Rizzi L., Riess A. G., Yuan W., 2022, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68df , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210800007A 932, 15

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac68df 2022

  4. [4]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...89A 966, 89

    Anand G. S., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966...89A 966, 89

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a 2024

  5. [5]

    W., Rothman D

    Arnscheidt C. W., Rothman D. H., 2020, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.2020.0303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RSPSA.47600303A 476, 20200303

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Baade W., 1944, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/144650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1944ApJ...100..137B 100, 137

    doi:10.1086/144650 1944

  7. [7]

    Baker T., et al., 2021, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015003 , https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015003 93, 015003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.015003 2021

  8. [8]

    Ballardini M., Finelli F., Sapone D., 2022, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/06/004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JCAP...06..004B 2022, 004

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/06/004 2022

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Banik I., 2016, @doi [Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach] 10.4172/2332-2519.1000153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JAsBO...4..153B 4, 153

    2016

  2. [10]

    Banik I., Kalaitzidis V., 2025, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250117934B Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2501.17934 )

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Banik I., Samaras N., 2024, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241000804B Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2410.00804 )

    2024

  4. [12]

    P., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2019, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab43e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L...1B 887, L1

    Bellinger E. P., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2019, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab43e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887L...1B 887, L1

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    N., Garc \' a R

    B \'e trisey J., Farnir M., Breton S. N., Garc \' a R. A., Broomhall A. M., Amarsi A. M., Kochukhov O., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688L..17B 688, L17

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Bonanno A., Fr \"o hlich H.-E., 2020, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab86b9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893L..35B 893, L35

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Brax P., Casas S., Desmond H., Elder B., 2021, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe8010011 , 8, 11

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Brout D., et al., 2022, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..110B 938, 110

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    I., 1969, @doi [Tellus] 10.3402/tellusa.v21i5.10109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Tell...21..611B 21, 611

    Budyko M. I., 1969, @doi [Tellus] 10.3402/tellusa.v21i5.10109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Tell...21..611B 21, 611

    1969 doi

  10. [18]

    Camarena D., Marra V., 2018, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..98b3537C 98, 023537

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Camarena D., Marra V., 2020a, @doi [Physical Review Research] 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.013028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvR...2a3028C 2, 013028

    doi

  12. [20]

    Camarena D., Marra V., 2020b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa770 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.2630C 495, 2630

    doi

  13. [21]

    P., 2023, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230703116C Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2307.03116 )

    Cantiello M., Blakeslee J. P., 2023, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230703116C Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2307.03116 )

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Carniani S., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-024-07860-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.633..318C 633, 318

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Cimatti A., Moresco M., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace439 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953..149C 953, 149

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Cogato F., Moresco M., Amati L., Cimatti A., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4874C 527, 4874

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    N., Bizzarro M., Krot A

    Connelly J. N., Bizzarro M., Krot A. N., Nordlund A ., Wielandt D., Ivanova M. A., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1226919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...338..651C 338, 651

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Sakstein J., Shaw D

    Davis A.-C., Lim E. A., Sakstein J., Shaw D. J., 2012, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.123006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvD..85l3006D 85, 123006

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Desmond H., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2762 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230311314D 526, 3342

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Desmond H., Sakstein J., 2020, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.102b3007D 102, 023007

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Desmond H., Jain B., Sakstein J., 2019, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100d3537D 100, 043537

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Di Valentino E., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.2065D 502, 2065

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Djorgovski S., Davis M., 1987, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/164948 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...313...59D 313, 59

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Burstein D., Davies R

    Dressler A., Faber S. M., Burstein D., Davies R. L., Lynden-Bell D., Terlevich R. J., Wegner G., 1987, @doi [ApJL] 10.1086/184827 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...313L..37D 313, L37

    1987 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Maddox S

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

    1990 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Jackson R

    Faber S. M., Jackson R. E., 1976, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/154215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...204..668F 204, 668

    1976 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Williams J

    Folkner W. M., Williams J. G., Boggs D. H., Park R. S., Kuchynka P., 2014, Interplanetary Network Progress Report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014IPNPR.196C...1F 42-196, 1

    2014

  29. [37]

    L., Madore B

    Freedman W. L., Madore B. F., Jang I. S., Hoyt T. J., Lee A. J., Owens K. A., 2024, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240806153F Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2408.06153 )

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Goldman I., 2024, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhLB..85839084G 858, 139084

    2024

  31. [39]

    G \'o mez-Valent A., Amendola L., 2018, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JCAP...04..051G 2018, 051

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    B., 1998, in Korzennik S., ed., ESA Special Publication Vol

    Guenther D. B., 1998, in Korzennik S., ed., ESA Special Publication Vol. 418, Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun and Sun-like Stars. p. 375

    1998

  33. [41]

    Guo W., et al., 2025, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ada37f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...978L..33G 978, L33

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    P., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3385G 524, 3385

    Gupta R. P., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3385G 524, 3385

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Haslbauer M., Banik I., Kroupa P., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.2845H 499, 2845

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    H., Haghi H., 2022, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939L..31H 939, L31

    Haslbauer M., Kroupa P., Zonoozi A. H., Haghi H., 2022, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9a50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939L..31H 939, L31

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Herzberg C., Condie K., Korenaga J., 2010, @doi [Earth and Planetary Science Letters] 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.01.022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010E&PSL.292...79H 292, 79

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    o g \^a s M., M \

    H \"o g \^a s M., M \"o rtsell E., 2023a, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.024007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108b4007H 108, 024007

    doi

  39. [47]

    o g \^a s M., M \

    H \"o g \^a s M., M \"o rtsell E., 2023b, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108l4050H 108, 124050

    doi

  40. [48]

    Huang H., et al., 2024, @doi [PNAS] 10.1073/pnas.2317051121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PNAS..12117051H 121, e2317051121

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Hughes D., 2006, Journal of the British Astronomical Association, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JBAA..116...21H 116, 21

    2006

  42. [50]

    F., Irwin M., Totten E., Quinn T., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/320060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...551..294I 551, 294

    Ibata R., Lewis G. F., Irwin M., Totten E., Quinn T., 2001, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/320060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...551..294I 551, 294

    2001 doi

  43. [51]

    Jain B., Vikram V., Sakstein J., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779...39J 779, 39

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    B., Blakeslee J

    Jensen J. B., Blakeslee J. P., Cantiello M., Cowles M., Anand G. S., Tully R. B., Kourkchi E., Raimondo G., 2025, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250215935J Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2502.15935 )

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    C., Barger A

    Keenan R. C., Barger A. J., Cowie L. L., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775...62K 775, 62

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    LIGO Collaboration 2016, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvL.116f1102A 116, 061102

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Lamine B., Ozdalkiran Y., Mirouze L., Erdogan F., Ilic S., Tutusaus I., Kou R., Blanchard A., 2025, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240715553L in press

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    S., 1907, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1907AnHar..60...87L 60, 87

    Leavitt H. S., 1907, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1907AnHar..60...87L 60, 87

    1907

  49. [57]

    S., Schombert J

    Lelli F., McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., 2016, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/157 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152..157L 152, 157

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    S., Schombert J

    Lelli F., McGaugh S. S., Schombert J. M., Pawlowski M. S., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/152 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..152L 836, 152

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    L., 2024, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240317048L Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2403.17048 )

    Li S., Beaton R. L., 2024, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240317048L Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2403.17048 )

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Li P., Lelli F., McGaugh S., Schombert J., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732547 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180300022L 615, A3

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Marra V., Perivolaropoulos L., 2021, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L021303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104b1303M 104, L021303

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Mazurenko S., Banik I., Kroupa P., Haslbauer M., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.4388M 527, 4388

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Mazurenko S., Banik I., Kroupa P., 2025, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae2758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.536.3232M 536, 3232

    2025 doi

  56. [64]

    Moresco M., 2024, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241201994M Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2412.01994 )

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Moresco M., Jimenez R., Verde L., Pozzetti L., Cimatti A., Citro A., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...868...84M 868, 84

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Moresco M., Jimenez R., Verde L., Cimatti A., Pozzetti L., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898...82M 898, 82

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    J., et al., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/338983 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569..245N 569, 245

    Newberg H. J., et al., 2002, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/338983 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...569..245N 569, 245

    2002 doi

  60. [68]

    Ooba J., Ichiki K., Chiba T., Sugiyama N., 2016, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..93l2002O 93, 122002

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    Ooba J., Ichiki K., Chiba T., Sugiyama N., 2017, @doi [Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics] 10.1093/ptep/ptx046 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PTEP.2017d3E03O 2017, 043E03

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    P., Steinhardt P

    Ostriker J. P., Steinhardt P. J., 1995, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/377600a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.377..600O 377, 600

    1995 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Perivolaropoulos L., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9070317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ....9..317P 9, 317

    Paraskevas E. A., Perivolaropoulos L., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9070317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ....9..317P 9, 317

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    Perivolaropoulos L., 2022, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe8050263 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Univ....8..263P 8, 263

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    Perivolaropoulos L., 2024, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240811031P 110, 123518

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    Perivolaropoulos L., Skara F., 2021, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.123511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104l3511P 104, 123511

    2021 doi

  67. [75]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L...1P 891, L1

    Pesce D. W., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891L...1P 891, L1

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    M., 1993, @doi [ApJL] 10.1086/186970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.105P 413, L105

    Phillips M. M., 1993, @doi [ApJL] 10.1086/186970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.105P 413, L105

    1993 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Lira P., Suntzeff N

    Phillips M. M., Lira P., Suntzeff N. B., Schommer R. A., Hamuy M., Maza J., 1999, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/301032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118.1766P 118, 1766

    1999 doi

  70. [78]

    Planck Collaboration VI 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    L., Karwal T., 2023, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PDU....4201348P 42, 101348

    Poulin V., Smith T. L., Karwal T., 2023, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PDU....4201348P 42, 101348

    2023

  72. [80]

    R., et al., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1230492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...339..684R 339, 684

    Renne P. R., et al., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1230492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...339..684R 339, 684

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    Reyes C., Sakstein J., 2024, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.084080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109h4080R 109, 084080

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    Rezazadeh K., Ashoorioon A., Grin D., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7b16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..137R 975, 137

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    G., Breuval L., 2024, in de Grijs R., Whitelock P

    Riess A. G., Breuval L., 2024, in de Grijs R., Whitelock P. A., Catelan M., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 376, IAU Symposium. Cambridge University Press, pp 15--29 ( @eprint arXiv 2308.10954 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921323003034

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

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

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

    doi

  77. [85]

    G., et al., 2022b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...36R 938, 36

    Riess A. G., et al., 2022b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...36R 938, 36

    doi

  78. [86]

    G., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..120R 977, 120

    Riess A. G., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8c21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..120R 977, 120

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    R., Rentala V., 2024a, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...06..056R 2024, 056

    Ruchika Rathore H., Choudhury S. R., Rentala V., 2024a, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JCAP...06..056R 2024, 056

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    Ruchika Perivolaropoulos L., Melchiorri A., 2024b, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240803875R Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2408.03875 )

  81. [89]

    Said K., et al., 2024, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240813842S Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2408.13842 )

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Sakr Z., Sapone D., 2022, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/03/034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JCAP...03..034S 2022, 034

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    Sakstein J., 2013, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.124013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvD..88l4013S 88, 124013

    2013 doi

  84. [92]

    Sakstein J., Desmond H., Jain B., 2019, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvD.100j4035S 100, 104035

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2025, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ada0bd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240914546S 979, L9

    2025 doi

  86. [94]

    D., 1973, @doi [Journal of Applied Meteorology] 10.1175/1520-0450(1973)012<0241:ANGCM>2.0.CO;2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973JApMe..12..241S 12, 241

    Sellers W. D., 1973, @doi [Journal of Applied Meteorology] 10.1175/1520-0450(1973)012<0241:ANGCM>2.0.CO;2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973JApMe..12..241S 12, 241

    1973 doi

  87. [95]

    Stiskalek R., Desmond H., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.6130S 525, 6130

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    Teller E., 1948, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.73.801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948PhRv...73..801T 73, 801

    1948 doi

  89. [97]

    Toda Y., Giar \`e W., \"O z \"u lker E., Di Valentino E., Vagnozzi S., 2024, @doi [Physics of the Dark Universe] 10.1016/j.dark.2024.101676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PDU....4601676T 46, 101676

    2024

  90. [98]

    Tripp R., 1998, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331..815T 331, 815

    1998

  91. [99]

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

    2024 doi

  92. [100]

    B., Fisher J

    Tully R. B., Fisher J. R., 1977, A&A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....54..661T 54, 661

    1977

  93. [101]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...72U 970, 72

    Uddin S. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...72U 970, 72

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    Uzan J.-P., 2011, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.12942/lrr-2011-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011LRR....14....2U 14, 2

    2011 doi

  95. [103]

    Vagnozzi S., 2021, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063524 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104f3524V 104, 063524

    2021 doi

  96. [104]

    Vagnozzi S., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9090393 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ....9..393V 9, 393

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    Valcin D., Jimenez R., Seljak U., Verde L., 2025, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250319481V Arxiv ( @eprint arXiv 2503.19481 )

    2025 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Virgo & LIGO Collaborations 2017, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    2017 doi

  99. [107]

    Walker J. C. G., Hays P. B., Kasting J. F., 1981, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research] 10.1029/JC086iC10p09776 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981JGR....86.9776W 86, 9776

    1981 doi

  100. [108]

    W., 1963, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/197948a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963Natur.197..948W 197, 948

    Wells J. W., 1963, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/197948a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963Natur.197..948W 197, 948

    1963 doi

  101. [109]

    G., Boggs D

    Williams J. G., Boggs D. H., 2016, @doi [Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy] 10.1007/s10569-016-9702-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016CeMDA.126...89W 126, 89

    2016 doi

  102. [110]

    S., Li B., 2018, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.083505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..97h3505W 97, 083505

    Wright B. S., Li B., 2018, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.083505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..97h3505W 97, 083505

    2018 doi

  103. [111]

    S., Li B., 2018, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JCAP...10..052Z 2018, 052

    Zhao W., Wright B. S., Li B., 2018, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/10/052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JCAP...10..052Z 2018, 052

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology] 10.1029/2019PA003723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PaPa...35.3723W 35, e2019PA003723

    de Winter N. J., et al., 2020, @doi [Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology] 10.1029/2019PA003723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PaPa...35.3723W 35, e2019PA003723

    2020 doi

  105. [113]

    G., Ricci B., Weiss A., 1996, @doi [A&A] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9509090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...312..345D 312, 345

    degl'Innocenti S., Fiorentini G., Raffelt G. G., Ricci B., Weiss A., 1996, @doi [A&A] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9509090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...312..345D 312, 345

    1996 doi arXiv

  106. [114]

    van Putten M. H. P. M., 2024, @doi [Results in Physics] 10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ResPh..5707425V 57, 107425

    2024

Pith tools

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