Which independent labs have published replication studies on Gravite blind tests?

1. No direct evidence that “Gravite blind tests” exist in the supplied reporting

None of the items in the supplied result set identify a research program or experiment named “Gravite” or describe specific blind tests under that label. The results instead cover a mix of topics — planning for a Testing Gravity 2025 conference (Simon Fraser University) ^[1], general commentary on replication and replication publishing ^{[4] [5] [6]}, and methodological pieces about blind analyses in cosmology (DESI unblinding) ^[2]. Available sources do not mention the term “Gravite blind tests” or present publications that replicate such tests (not found in current reporting).

2. What the supplied sources do document about blinding and replication in physics

The supplied items show active discussion of blinding and replication across physics and adjacent fields. DESI’s December 2024 unblinding is described in a lab blog piece that explains why blind analyses are used to avoid confirmation bias in cosmology ^[2]. Conference organisation for Testing Gravity 2025 indicates a community focus on experimental probes of gravity ^[1]. These items establish context: researchers are explicitly using blinding and holding conferences and discussions about replication — but none of these documents ties to a “Gravite” program or related replication papers ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Broader replication landscape in the supplied material — replication is scarce and contested

Meta-analyses and commentaries included in your results stress that replication work is both rare and institutionally challenging. A scoping review of AR/VR conferences found under 4% of papers were replication studies, illustrating a publication bias and cultural headwind against replications in some subfields ^[3]. Commentary about eLife’s new replication-article type and guest posts on Replication initiatives further emphasise debate over how replication should be supported and reviewed ^{[4] [7]}. These sources imply that, even when the community cares about replication, formal published replications are uncommon and contested ^{[3] [4] [7]}.

4. Two plausible reasons you can’t find named replication labs in these sources

First, the supplied corpus simply does not include targeted reporting on a “Gravite” project or related replications; search results focus on other replication topics and blinding practices ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Second, replication studies — when they exist — are often published in venues or as Registered Reports that may not surface in general summaries, and the supplied list contains meta-level pieces rather than primary replication articles ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Available sources do not list independent labs that published replications of Gravite blind tests (not found in current reporting).

5. How to proceed if you want a definitive answer

The sources you gave don’t contain the necessary primary references. For a verifiable list of independent labs that replicated a named experiment, consult: (a) peer‑reviewed journals and their replication or methods sections for the experiment name; (b) preprint servers and the experiment’s own collaboration webpages for links to follow-up work; and (c) conference proceedings (Testing Gravity and similar meetings) for replication talks and posters ^{[1] [2]}. The provided set suggests those are plausible places to check, but the current reporting does not include the specific publications you asked about ^{[1] [2]}.

Limitations: This article uses only the supplied search results. If you can provide primary references, paper titles, or additional search results mentioning “Gravite” or the exact blind-test name, I will locate which independent labs have published replications and summarise their methods and conclusions.