Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 10 cited by

A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Dovekie cross-calibration of 11 supernova photometric systems, anchored by Pan-STARRS, Gaia, and direct DA white-dwarf standards, shrinks the Pantheon+ calibration systematic on the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter to…

desk verdict Dovekie is a solid, open-source calibration product whose headline cosmology claims need a control-sample test before they are cited. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05471 v1 pith:3PT6AZLD submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.CO

B. Popovic , W.D. Kenworthy , M. Ginolin , A. Goobar , P. Shah , B.M. Boyd , A. Do , D. Brout
show 16 more authors
D. Scolnic M. Vincenzi S. Dhawan D.O. Jones M. Smith M. Rigault B. Racine E.E. Hayes R. Chen P. Wiseman L. Galbany M. Grayling L. LaCroix C. Barjou-Delayre D. Kuhn C. Lemon
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords supernovacosmologyphotometriccross-calibrationdarkenergySALTlight-curvemodelDAwhitedwarfstandardsGaiaspectrophotometryPantheon+DES5YR
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 presents Dovekie, an open-source re-calibration of 52 filters across 11 supernova photometric systems, tied together with Pan-STARRS and Gaia all-sky observations and, for the first time, direct photometry of DA white dwarfs. The authors claim that the new calibration cuts the photometric systematic uncertainty on the dark-energy equation-of-state parameter $w$ in a Pantheon+-like sample from 0.023 to 0.016, a factor of 1.5, with smaller gains for the DES5YR analysis. They also show that these small calibration changes are amplified by up to a factor of six in the inferred supernova distances, through the colour-luminosity relation and SALT model training, shifting distance moduli by $\mathrm{d}\mu/\mathrm{d}z = 0.025$ and changing the recovered $\Omega_M$ in $\Lambda$CDM by about 0.01. A reader should care because telescope calibration is one of the largest systematic uncertainties in supernova cosmology, and a reproducible, extensible calibration that narrows it bears directly on whether reported dark-energy anomalies, such as evolving $w$, are real.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-part Bayesian zero-point fit: a DA white-dwarf likelihood that compares catalogue photometry of the standards to synthetic photometry computed from hierarchical-Bayesian model SEDs; a tertiary-standard likelihood that ties every survey to PS1 aperture magnitudes through colour-magnitude slopes; and Gaussian priors on the 52 zero-point offsets. Before that fit, filter bandpasses are characterised by regressing synthetic against observed colour terms using both PS1 and Gaia spectrophotometry, allowing data-driven wavelength shifts (for example, +30 Å applied to all SNLS bands), energy-to-photon-counting reweighting for the CfA4 filters, and new per-filter uncertainties. The pipeline then retrains a SALT surface and nine systematic surfaces with zero-point and bandpass realisations sampled from the resulting covariance, and the spread of fitted distances across those surfaces becomes the calibration systematic covariance used in cosmology fits.

What would settle it

Re-run the Dovekie pipeline with the PS1 g-band shifted back by 30 Å (the Fragilistic definition) or with Gaia synthetic photometry as the sole anchor, and also measure the true transmission curves of the SNLS and CfA4 filters; if the recovered zero-points, the +30 Å shifts, or the $\Delta w \approx 0.08$ cosmological shift move by more than the quoted uncertainties, the claimed 1.5× improvement is reference-dependent rather than an absolute calibration gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the published filter zero-points and transmission curves of the major supernova surveys can be replaced by a single, internally consistent calibration — Dovekie — whose uncertainties are smaller and better motivated than the previous Fragilistic solution. Using model SEDs of DA white dwarfs to anchor zero-points, and PS1 plus Gaia data to characterise filter shapes, the paper derives new per-filter wavelength-shift and effective-wavelength weighting corrections, plus per-filter uncertainties, and a 52-dimensional zero-point covariance matrix. Propagated through retrained SALT light-curve surfaces, this yields a photometric systematic uncertainty $\sigma_{w}(\mathrm{phot}) = 0.016$ for flat $w$CDM on a Pantheon+-like sample, a 1.5× improvement, and $\sigma_{w}(\mathrm{phot}) = 0.019$ for the DES5YR sample. The paper further argues that even sub-centimagnitude calibration changes can be amplified up to a factor of six in inferred SN Ia distances, producing a redshift-dependent distance shift $\mathrm{d}\mu/\mathrm{d}z = 0.025$ and a shift of roughly 0.01 in $\Omega_M$ in $\Lambda$CDM, with potentially larger effects in $w_0$-$w_a$ space and ongoing work toward a full DES reanalysis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Pan-STARRS public aperture photometry is an accurate absolute reference: its roughly 5 mmag tie to the CALSPEC standard system is taken at face value and its bandpasses are kept unchanged, while every other survey's zero-points and filter shapes are adjusted to match it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pantheon+-based measurements of $w$ inherit a photometric systematic of $\sigma_{w}(\mathrm{phot}) = 0.016$, down from 0.023, with no significant change to the central values.
  • Calibration must be propagated through SALT training, not just applied as zero-point errors: the same small offsets shift inferred distances by up to six times their size when the colour-luminosity relation is refit.
  • The redshift-dependent distance shifts ($\mathrm{d}\mu/\mathrm{d}z = 0.025$, $\Delta\Omega_M \approx 0.01$ in $\Lambda$CDM) mean calibration is a candidate contributor to apparent dark-energy evolution; the paper expects larger effects on $w_0$ and $w_a$.
  • The DES5YR sample gains a smaller improvement ($\sigma_{w}(\mathrm{phot}) = 0.023 \rightarrow 0.019$), and shows a redshift-dependent distance slope relative to the previous calibration that motivates the announced full DES reanalysis.
  • Because the code, photometry, and filters are public and extensible, future surveys such as LSST and Roman can be inserted into the same cross-calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Pan-STARRS' own tie to CALSPEC carries a wavelength-dependent error near its quoted ~5 mmag, the Dovekie offsets would shift coherently; an independent absolute anchor (for example, direct CALSPEC observations of survey fields) would be needed to know whether the 1.5× gain is absolute or relative to PS1.
  • The paper's finding that calibration changes amplify sixfold in distances implies that the largest remaining calibration risk is the SALT training step itself; a testable prediction is that changing the colour-law prior or the set of training surveys will shift $\beta$ and hence $w$ by roughly the quoted calibration uncertainty.
  • Since the central-value shift between Fragilistic and Dovekie ($\Delta w \approx 0.08$) is larger than the reduction in $\sigma_{w}(\mathrm{phot})$, future full reanalyses should focus as much on the shift as on the error bar: the same calibration change that shrinks the systematic could move the best-fit cosmology by a comparable amount relative to DESI-like dark-energy results.
  • The modest DES5YR improvement, alongside the redshift-dependent distance slope, suggests the DES reanalysis could change $\Omega_M$ and $w_a$ in a direction that matters for the reported tension with $\Lambda$CDM; that is an empirical question the announced reanalysis will settle.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Dovekie, an open-source cross-calibration code that simultaneously fits zero-point offsets and effective filter bandpass modifications for 11 SN Ia photometric systems (52 filters), using PS1 aperture photometry, Gaia spectrophotometry, and DA white dwarf models as anchors. The authors validate the pipeline on 100 simulated catalogues, report new filter transmission uncertainties, and retrain a SALT surface ('Dovekie') on a reduced training sample. They then propagate the calibration through light-curve fitting to distance moduli and cosmological parameters, reporting a roughly 1.5x reduction in the Pantheon+ photometric systematic uncertainty (sigma_w(phot) ~ 0.016), and pointing to calibration-induced shifts of Delta_w ~ 0.08, Delta_Omega_M ~ 0.01, and dmu/dz = 0.025.

Significance. If the results hold, Dovekie provides a valuable public calibration resource, introduces a new method for deriving filter uncertainties, and strengthens the empirical case that calibration systematics can be amplified through SALT training and colour-luminosity relations. The paper's simulation-based bias tests and use of independent DA white dwarf standards are concrete strengths. However, the headline quantitative claims depend on separating the effects of calibration from the effects of changing the SALT training sample, and on the assumed accuracy of the PS1 absolute reference.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 / Section 6.1] The Dovekie SALT surface is trained on a reduced sample that drops CfA1, CfA2, Calan-Tololo, and Misc Low-z (Section 5), while SALT3.DES5YR is trained on a different sample with the old calibration. The decomposition in Section 6.1 attributes Delta_w = 0.037 to the SALT-model change and Delta_w = 0.0429 to zero-points, but the 'Diff SALT, same ZP' comparison in Figure 12 changes the training sample and the calibration simultaneously, so the 0.037 includes the effect of sample selection. The same confound affects the x6 distance-amplification claim in the abstract and Figure 8, since those comparisons are between Dovekie and SALT3.DES5YR without a control surface trained on the reduced sample with the old calibration. A control SALT surface, or a re-training of Dovekie on the full sample, is required to attribute the distance shifts and the sigma_w(phot) improvement to calibration alone.
  2. [Section 3.4 / Section 8.1] The calibration solution anchors all zero-point offsets and filter transformations to the PS1-Public aperture magnitudes and to the published PS1 bandpasses, which are taken as an absolute reference and kept unmodified. If PS1 has a wavelength-dependent calibration error, all 52 offsets shift coherently and the recovered filter shifts are biased, and the improvement in sigma_w(phot) would not correspond to a true improvement in absolute colour calibration. Since the DA WD constraints cover only PS1, DES, and SDSS, they do not fully break this degeneracy for the other surveys. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the offsets and of sigma_w(phot) to this assumption, for example by repeating the fit with the Fragilistic PS1-g shift or with a Gaia-only zero-point reference.
  3. [Section 6 / Abstract] The cosmological shifts (Delta_w ~ 0.076-0.084, Delta_Omega_M ~ 0.01, dmu/dz = 0.025) are derived from distances fit without bias corrections, as the paper states in Section 6 ('without bias corrections'). The abstract nevertheless presents the Omega_M and dmu/dz changes as results. Because selection effects and bias corrections can shift recovered w and Omega_M at the level of the quoted changes, these numbers should either be recomputed with a BBC/selection-function treatment or explicitly relabeled as raw distance-modulus differences rather than cosmological parameter estimates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (23)] The covariance is estimated from only 9 systematic realizations, each drawn from the full covariance and rescaled by sigma_k = 1/3; with so few realizations the covariance estimate has large noise, and the quoted sigma_w(phot) values should carry an uncertainty or the number of realizations should be increased.
  2. [Section 3.2.1, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The notation Delta_b'_Int is called an 'intercept' but later used as a zero-point-related offset; please clarify the distinction between this intercept and the final zero-point offsets Delta_{S,b}.
  3. [Table 1 / Section 4.1] The lambda_eff column is only filled for the weighted bands; for completeness, provide lambda_eff for all modified filters or point the reader to the table in the Appendix where all lambda_eff are listed.
  4. [Section 2.2.2 / Acknowledgements] The phrase 'the unsubmitted C. Cramer et al. (2025, in preparation)' should be changed to 'unpublished' or 'in preparation'; also, the Acknowledgements include a non-standard 'dear reader' passage and mention conservation efforts in Iceland, which is not appropriate for a journal article and should be removed or rewritten.
  5. [Introduction] The citation 'NaCl, Osman, in prep.' is incomplete (missing author list and year); please provide a full citation or remove it.
  6. [Figure 7 caption] The label '2 Disp.' and the sentence 'The difference in colour dispersion ranges from 0 to 2 mags' are ambiguous; the bottom panel appears to show a fractional difference, so the text should say 'fractional difference' and specify the units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The Dovekie calibration analysis is self-contained forward modeling anchored to external standards; the central systematic-uncertainty result is not circular, though the SALT retraining sample change confounds the calibration attribution (a correctness risk, not circularity).

full rationale

The core calibration is a forward model: zero-point offsets and filter shifts are fitted to published tertiary standards, Gaia spectra, and DA white dwarf SEDs anchored to CALSPEC, PS1, and Gaia. These fitted parameters are physical calibration constants, not the target result. The headline systematic uncertainty, sigma_w(phot), is then obtained by Monte Carlo propagation: nine SALT surfaces are trained with Delta_b and lambda_shift values drawn from the calibration posterior, distances are recomputed, and the covariance is formed. This is standard uncertainty propagation, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction, because the calibration parameters and the cosmological systematic are distinct quantities with a defined generative link. The DA white dwarf constraints (Boyd et al. 2025) are a self-citation by co-authors, but they rest on an independent published hierarchical model of external HST photometry; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or an unverified self-citation to force its choice. No equation reduces to an input by construction, and no known result is renamed as a new framework. The one material caveat is the SALT training sample: the paper drops CfA1, CfA2, Calan-Tololo, and Misc Low-z to form the Dovekie surface (Section 5), so the comparison between Dovekie and SALT3.DES5YR in Figure 12 and Section 6.1, including the decomposed Delta_w = 0.037 for the SALT component, conflates the new calibration with a sample selection effect. No control surface was trained on the reduced sample with the old Fragilistic calibration. This is a confound in attributing the distance shifts and the x1.5 improvement solely to calibration, but it is not circularity: the systematic-uncertainty calculation remains well-defined, and the claimed result is not made true by definition. The paper also cites an in-preparation self-paper (Whimbrel) for SALT regularization changes, but the code is public and reproducible, so this is a minor provenance gap rather than a load-bearing self-citation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and externally anchored; the score reflects only the minor self-citations and the un-isolated sample confound, which belong in correctness risk rather than circularity.

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

The analysis is calibrated, not derived from first principles: it fits 52 zero-point offsets, 16 filter shifts, a hand-set CfA4 weighting, per-survey floors, and WD error rescaling parameters to data, and assumes the correctness of CALSPEC, PS1, Gaia, and DA WD standards. The central systematic uncertainty result is therefore only as good as those external standards and the assumed functional form of filter errors.

free parameters (6)
  • Zero-point offsets Delta_b = Table 3 (52 values, e.g., PS1-g = -0.0018)
    Central calibration parameters constrained by white dwarf, tertiary star, and prior terms in Eq. 14.
  • Filter wavelength shifts lambda_Shift = Table 1 (e.g., CfA3S-B +70A, CSP-B +50A, SNLS +30A)
    Chosen to make synthetic and observed colour-magnitude slopes agree; not independently measured.
  • CfA4 energy/photon weighting factor X = X = -1 for all CfA4P1/P2 filters
    Hand-chosen assumption that CfA4 filters were provided in energy-counting rather than photon-counting units.
  • Per-survey error floors f_S = Table 8 (0.003 to 0.01 mag)
    Assigned conservative floors in the tertiary standard likelihood, Eq. 21.
  • WD photometry error rescaling parameters alpha and sigma = e.g., DES-g rescaled error (0.00)^2 + 0.006^2
    Empirically inflated to match white dwarf residual scatter in Figures 21-24.
  • Outlier distribution width Sigma and fraction f_out = Estimated per survey
    Manually fixed in the simulation model to mimic the observed outlier distribution.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CALSPEC absolute flux scale is correct and provides the reference for all surveys.
    Every survey is anchored to CALSPEC either directly or through PS1 and white dwarf standards.
  • domain assumption PS1 DR2 aperture magnitudes are accurately calibrated to CALSPEC and PS1 bandpasses are correct.
    PS1-Public photometry ties together all zero-point offsets in Section 3.4, and PS1 bandpasses are preserved unmodified in Section 8.1.
  • domain assumption DA white dwarf SED models from Boyd et al. (2025) are accurate absolute standards.
    WD synthetic photometry directly constrains DES, PS1, and SDSS offsets in Section 3.4.2.
  • domain assumption Gaia spectrophotometry is reliable for filter characterisation in all bands except g.
    The Gaia contribution is discarded for g bands following private communication from E. Rykoff, Section 3.2.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear colour transformation plus wavelength-shift and energy/photon weighting model captures real bandpass differences.
    No first-principles derivation that filter errors take this form; it is a data-driven model used in Eq. 7 and Eq. 8.
  • domain assumption The simulation procedure faithfully reproduces data noise, outliers, and colour distributions.
    Used for bias corrections in Section 3.3; incorrect simulation inputs would leave slope and zero-point biases uncorrected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PT6AZLD

@misc{pith2026250605471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Reassessment of the Pantheon+ and DES 5YR Calibration Uncertainties: Dovekie},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PT6AZLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05471}
}
read the original abstract

Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) are crucial tools to measure the accelerating expansion of the universe, comprising thousands of SNe across multiple telescopes. Accurate measurements of cosmological parameters with SNe Ia require a robust understanding and cross-calibration of the telescopes and filters. A previous cross-calibration effort, 'Fragilistic', provided 25 photometric systems, but offered no public code or ability to add new surveys. We provide an open-source cross-calibration solution, available at https://github.com/bap37/Dovekie/ . Using the Pan-STARRs (PS1) and Gaia all-sky telescopes, we characterise the measured filters from 11 photometric systems, including CfA, PS1, Foundation, DES, CSP, SDSS, and SNLS, using published observations of field stars. For the first time, we derive uncertainties on effective filter transmissions and modify filters to match the data. With the addition of direct observations of DA white dwarfs (Boyd et al. 2025), we simultaneously cross-calibrate our zeropoints across photometric systems and propagate to cosmology. With improved uncertainties from DA WDs, we find improvements to the calibration systematic uncertainty of x1.5 for the Pantheon+ (Brout et al. 2022) sample with a new systematic photometric uncertainty = 0.016 for FlatwCDM, and modest improvements to that of the DES5YR analysis. We find good agreement with previous calibration, and show that even these small calibration changes can be amplified by up to a factor of x6 in the inferred SN Ia distances, driven by calibration sensitivity in the colour-luminosity relations and SALT training. Initial results indicate that these changes cause dmu/dz = 0.025 and change the recovered value of Omega_M in LCDM by ~0.01. These may have a potentially larger impact in w0/wa space and inferences about evolving dark energy. We pursue this calculation in an ongoing full re-analysis of DES.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A visual overview of the filter characterisation method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of the Fragilistic-derived o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The posterior covariance matrix between best-fit Dovekie zero-point o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The M0 components for Dovekie and SALT3.DES5YR, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the colour law behaviour for Dovekie and SALT3.DES5YR as a function of wavelength and the differ￾ence between the two colour laws, multiplied by the standard deviation of the colour distribution (σc = 0.1). The two colour laws are similar, only significantly vary…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: The SALT3 colour dispersion for Dovekie (gold) and SALT3.DES5YR (black). Bottom: The fractional difference in SALT3 colour laws between Dovekie and SALT3.DES5YR. The difference in colour dispersion ranges from 0 to 2 mags. The wavelength ranges outside of the nomi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The difference in the individual Tripp components be￾tween SALT3.DES5YR and Dovekie, binned as a function of redshift. The mB component is shown in gold, the βc in blue, and αx1 in black. The RMS of the differences over the entire sample is shown in the legend. 0.01 0.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The binned, median differences between the Dovekie SALT surface and the 9 systematic uncertainties, including both changes to the SALT surface and ZP offsets. Each surface is colour coded as in previous figures; we find the increased filter uncertainties do not signif…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: w/ΩM contours from the Dovekie training sample. The nominal contour, with increased filter uncertainties, is shown in gold; statistical-only contour is shown in grey. For comparison, we show systematic uncertainties from the SALT3.DES5YR sur￾face in blue. For visual c…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: We show the impact of calibration in both model con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The fractional differences of the SALT3 colour law CL(λ) of the systematic Dovekie surfaces (DOV0-9) as com￾pared to the nominal Dovekie surface, as a function of wave￾length. Survey Prior Floor PS1-Public N(0, 0.01) N/A PS1-SN N(0, 0.01) 0.003 PS1-Foundation N(0, 0.0…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The fractional differences of the M0 component of the systematic Dovekie surfaces (DOV0-9) as compared to the nominal Dovekie surface, as a function of wavelength. 11.5. Recovery of Simulated Offsets As a test of our pipeline, we simulate 100 samples using the methodo…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: A visualisation of the filter changes performed in this analysis. The original published filter is presented in gold dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Posteriors for each filter in the surveys cross-calibrated in Dovekie, from PS1 and Gaia filter characterisation methods. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Posteriors for each filter in the surveys cross-calibrated in Dovekie, using Gaia as the reference survey. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Posteriors for each filter in the surveys cross-calibrated in Dovekie, using PS1 as the reference survey. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison of residuals for eight white dwarfs between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Comparison of residuals for eight white dwarfs between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_22.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Comparison of residuals for eight white dwarfs between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_24.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. A Simulation Based Inference Approach to Modelling of Type Ia Supernova Populations

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

    A simulation-based inference pipeline (Stjörnumál) fits SN Ia dust and intrinsic scatter models to DES 5-year data, enabling fast Bayesian model comparison across seven SN Ia population models.

  2. DESI DR2 Results IV: Alcock-Paczy\'nski Measurements from the Lyman Alpha Forest and Cosmological Constraints

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

    The full shape of DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha forest correlations constrains the distance ratio DM/DH at z=2.33 to 1.0%, twice as precise as BAO alone.

  3. General Relativistic Entropic Acceleration at the perturbation level: a CLASS implementation and first Boltzmann-code constraints

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First full Boltzmann-code implementation of entropic dark energy, with MCMC constraints from CMB+BAO+SN, yields α≈1 and a fit statistically indistinguishable from ΛCDM.

  4. Probing the matter-dominated expansion with multi-redshift Lyman-$\alpha$ BAO from DESI DR2

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

    DESI DR2 Lyman-alpha BAO measurements split into three redshift bins trace the expansion rate H(z) over z≈2.1–2.8, yielding a power-law slope n=1.34±0.16 consistent with matter-dominated expansion.

  5. The silent dark sector: a field-theory approach to unified dark fluids with vanishing speed of sound

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

    All vanishing-speed-of-sound TDiff scalar theories reduce to a two-parameter mimetic action describing the dark sector as interacting dust plus vacuum; a quadratic-potential example tracks the DESI CPL background.

  6. Quantum stress-energy at timelike boundaries: testing a new beyond-$\Lambda$CDM parameter with cosmological data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Timelike boundaries sourcing negative, 1/a-scaling vacuum energy fit CMB+BAO data slightly better than LCDM and relax the neutrino-mass constraint, though the preference is only about 2 sigma.

  7. Coupled quintessence from an axion dark sector

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

    A coupled two-axion dark sector reproduces the apparent phantom-crossing dark energy hinted at by DESI and fits CMB, BAO, and Type Ia supernova data as well as LambdaCDM.

  8. Entropic Chaplygin-Gas cosmology and late-universe tension diagnostics

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An entropic Chaplygin-gas dark sector can shift fitted H0 values, but the shift and any tension relief depend on supernova calibration and vanish with DES-Dovekie data.

  9. Late Time Dynamical Dark Energy and the CMB-Distance Ladder Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The SNIa absolute-magnitude tension between the distance ladder (−19.204) and CMB+ΛCDM (−19.430) is independent of late-time expansion history, and DESI's w0–wa dark-energy hints shift H0 by only ~0.3–0.4 km/s/Mpc.

  10. Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A comprehensive review finds no theoretical Hubble-tension solution yet passes all consistency tests; new early-dark-energy chains reach high H0 only when the SH0ES calibration is added.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al

    Adame, A. G., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., et al. 2025, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2025, 021

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 78

    Axelrod, T., Saha, A., Matheson, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 78

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 674, A32

    Babusiaux, C., Fabricius, C., Khanna, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A32

    2023

  4. [4]

    2025, SNCosmo

    Barbary, K., Bailey, S., Barentsen, G., et al. 2025, SNCosmo

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22

    Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22

    2014

  6. [6]

    2013, A&A, 552, A124

    Betoule, M., Marriner, J., Regnault, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A124

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Bohlin, R. C. 1996, AJ, 111, 1743

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Bohlin, R. C. 2014, AJ, 147, 127

    work page 2014

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    C., Deustua, S., Narayan, G., et al

    Bohlin, R. C., Deustua, S., Narayan, G., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 40

    2025

  2. [10]

    R., Efstathiou, G., & Tegmark, M

    Bond, J. R., Efstathiou, G., & Tegmark, M. 1997, MNRAS, 291, L33

    1997

  3. [11]

    M., Narayan, G., Mandel, K

    Boyd, B. M., Narayan, G., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 385

    2025

  4. [12]

    R., & Scolnic, D

    Brout, D., Hinton, S. R., & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJ, 912, L26

    2021

  5. [13]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.04077

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.04077

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2021, The Pantheon + Analysis: SuperCal-Fragilistic Cross Calibration, Retrained SALT2 Light Curve Model, and Calibration Systematic Uncertainty

    Brout, D., Taylor, G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2021, The Pantheon + Analysis: SuperCal-Fragilistic Cross Calibration, Retrained SALT2 Light Curve Model, and Calibration Systematic Uncertainty

    2021

  7. [15]

    R., Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Stubbs, C

    Brownsberger, S. R., Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Stubbs, C. W., & Riess, A. G. 2023, ApJ, 944, 188

    2023

  8. [16]

    L., Rykoff, E

    Burke, D. L., Rykoff, E. S., Allam, S., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 41

    2018

  9. [17]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 199

    Calamida, A., Matheson, T., Saha, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 199

    2019

  10. [18]

    M., Vincenzi, M., et al

    Camilleri, R., Davis, T. M., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2615

    2024

  11. [19]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints [arXiv:1612.05560]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    & Polarski, D

    Chevallier, M. & Polarski, D. 2001, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 10, 213

    2001

  13. [21]

    & Bohlin, R

    Colina, L. & Bohlin, R. C. 1994, AJ, 108, 1931

    1994

  14. [22]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.02458

    Currie, M., Rubin, D., Aldering, G., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.02458

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 54

    Dhawan, S., Brout, D., Scolnic, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 54

    2020

  16. [24]

    2010, AJ, 139, 1628

    Doi, M., Tanaka, M., Fukugita, M., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1628

    2010

  17. [25]

    J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al

    Foley, R. J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 193

    2018

  18. [26]

    E., et al

    Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    1996

  19. [27]

    V ., et al

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 418

    2010

  20. [28]

    P., et al

    Hicken, M., Challis, P., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 12

    2012

  21. [29]

    & Brout, D

    Hinton, S. & Brout, D. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2122

    2020

  22. [30]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 79

    Hlozek, R., Kunz, M., Bassett, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 79

    2012

  23. [31]

    Hoffman, M. D. & Gelman, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J., et al

    Hounsell, R., Scolnic, D., Foley, R. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 23

    2018

  25. [33]

    P., Challis, P., et al

    Jha, S., Kirshner, R. P., Challis, P., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 527

    2006

  26. [34]

    D., Goobar, A., Jones, D

    Kenworthy, W. D., Goobar, A., Jones, D. O., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.09713

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D., Jones, D

    Kenworthy, W. D., Jones, D. O., Dai, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 265

    2021

  28. [36]

    2024, SNDATA_ROOT for SNANA software

    Kessler, R., Brout, D., & Jones, D. 2024, SNDATA_ROOT for SNANA software

    2024

  29. [37]

    & Scolnic, D

    Kessler, R. & Scolnic, D. 2017, ApJ, 836, 56

    2017

  30. [38]

    & Vazdekis, A

    Koleva, M. & Vazdekis, A. 2012, A&A, 538, A143

    2012

  31. [39]

    R., et al

    Krisciunas, K., Contreras, C., Burns, C. R., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 160, 289

    2020

  32. [40]

    R., et al

    Krisciunas, K., Contreras, C., Burns, C. R., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 211

    2017

  33. [41]

    Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340

    1992

  34. [42]

    P., Kessler, R., et al

    Marriner, J., Bernstein, J. P., Kessler, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 72 Möller, A. & de Boissière, T. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.06384

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 20

    Narayan, G., Matheson, T., Saha, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 20

    2019

  36. [44]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    1983

  37. [45]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565

    1999

  38. [46]

    S., Breeveld, A

    Poole, T. S., Breeveld, A. A., Page, M. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 627

    2008

  39. [47]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.05654

    Popovic, B., Scolnic, D., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.05654

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J., et al

    Rest, A., Scolnic, D., Foley, R. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 44

    2014

  41. [49]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009

    1998

  42. [50]

    G., Kirshner, R

    Riess, A. G., Kirshner, R. P., Schmidt, B. P., et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 707

    1999

  43. [51]

    2025, A&A, 694, A1

    Rigault, M., Smith, M., Goobar, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A1

    2025

  44. [52]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12098

    Rubin, D., Aldering, G., Betoule, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.12098

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    S., Tucker, D

    Rykoff, E. S., Tucker, D. L., Burke, D. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.01695 Sánchez, B., Kessler, R., Scolnic, D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.06858 Article number, page 19 of 26 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aanda 3450.04450.05450.0 Wavelength (Å) Effic...

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  47. [55]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., Stutz, A. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 821, 78

    2016

  48. [56]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 117

    Scolnic, D., Casertano, S., Riess, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 117

    2015

  49. [57]

    2018, ApJ, 852, L3

    Scolnic, D., Kessler, R., Brout, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, L3

    2018

  50. [58]

    M., Riess, A

    Scolnic, D. M., Riess, A. G., Foley, R. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 37

    2014

  51. [59]

    A., Tucker, D

    Smith, J. A., Tucker, D. L., Kent, S., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2121

    2002

  52. [60]

    E., Zheng, W., de Jaeger, T., et al

    Stahl, B. E., Zheng, W., de Jaeger, T., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3882

    2019

  53. [61]

    Stubbs, C. W. & Tonry, J. L. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1206.6695

    2012 arXiv

  54. [62]

    T., Brout, D., Karwal, T., et al

    Tang, X. T., Brout, D., Karwal, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, L27

    2025

  55. [63]

    E., et al

    Taylor, G., Lidman, C., Tucker, B. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4111 The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, Mandelbaum, R., Eifler, T., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.01669

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99

    2012

  57. [65]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 86

    Vincenzi, M., Brout, D., Armstrong, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 86

    2024

  58. [66]

    Xiao, K., Yuan, H., Huang, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 53 Article number, page 20 of 26 Popovic & Kenworthy et al.: Dovekie -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Shift (Å) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 SNLS g i r z -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 ...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.