Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Implications for dark energy of cosmic transparency in light of DESI data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With DESI DR2 data, fitting the distance duality relation plus dark energy gives no deviation from cosmic transparency, and the local-calibration signal has the wrong sign to explain the Hubble tension.

desk verdict A useful DDR robustness check for DESI DR2, but the null result is vulnerable to SN absolute-magnitude drift and the abstract overstates the axion limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22599 v1 pith:IWCD37ND submitted 2025-06-27 astro-ph.CO

S. Dhawan , E. Mörtsell This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords distancedualityrelationcosmictransparencydarkenergyDESIDR2TypeIasupernovaeHubbletensionphoton-axionmixingintergalacticdust
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

The paper tests whether the distance duality relation—the equality between luminosity distance and angular diameter distance that any transparent metric theory of gravity enforces—still holds in the era of DESI DR2 dark-energy hints. Fitting the DDR deviation parameter $\epsilon$ alongside both a Chevallier-Polarski-Linder dark energy equation of state and a thawing-quintessence model, and marginalizing over the absolute Type Ia supernova luminosity, the authors find $\epsilon$ consistent with zero in every supernova compilation. This means the observed supernovae show no extra dimming that would point to intergalactic dust or photon-axion mixing. When the local Cepheid calibration is imposed, the preferred value $\epsilon = -0.091 \pm 0.024$ is significant but has the wrong sign: it requires supernovae to be brighter than the DDR case, so dimming scenarios cannot explain the Hubble tension. Allowing $\epsilon$ to float widens dark-energy equation-of-state errors by 30–50%, and the gray-dust density is bounded to $\Omega_{\rm dust} < 2 \times 10^{-4}$ at 95% confidence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Etherington distance duality relation, parametrized by $\epsilon$ through $d_L = d_A(1+z)^{2+\epsilon}$, with $\epsilon = 0$ for a transparent metric spacetime; any dimming process such as gray dust or photon-axion conversion pushes $\epsilon$ negative. The inference machinery is a joint likelihood over supernova distance moduli (with a single absolute magnitude $M$ marginalized over), compressed Planck CMB shift parameters, and DESI DR2 BAO distances, sampled under both the CPL equation of state and a thawing-quintessence equation of state whose early-time value is frozen near $w=-1$. To turn the null result into physics constraints, the photon survival probability $P_{\gamma\gamma} = 2/3 + \exp(-l/L_a)/3$ is matched to the measured distances, and the intergalactic dust treatment uses an opacity law to bound $\Omega_{\rm dust}$.

What would settle it

Re-run the CMB+BAO+SN fit with a redshift-dependent absolute magnitude, for example $M(z) = M_0 + m_1 z$ in place of the constant $M$ in Eq. (2.6), and check whether the fitted $\epsilon$ moves away from zero by more than its quoted uncertainty; if it does, the central null result is an artifact of the constant-$M$ assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, with the newest baryon acoustic oscillation data from DESI DR2 combined with compressed Planck CMB likelihoods and three supernova compilations, there is no statistically significant violation of the Etherington relation $d_L = d_A(1+z)^{2+\epsilon}$. Marginalizing over the absolute SN magnitude leaves $\epsilon = -0.014 \pm 0.037$ (Pantheon+), $-0.012 \pm 0.035$ (DES), and $-0.008 \pm 0.038$ (Union) for the CPL dark energy model, with similar null results for thawing quintessence. Only when the local Cepheid-calibrated supernova magnitudes are used does a strong deviation appear, $\epsilon = -0.091 \pm 0.024$; the negative sign means the supernovae are brighter than the DDR prediction, so physically plausible dimming mechanisms such as photon-axion conversion and gray intergalactic dust cannot be the cause of the Hubble tension. The same fits convert the null result into limits on the photon-axion coupling, $g_{a\gamma} < 2\text{–}6 \times 10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$, and on the gray-dust density, $\Omega_{\rm dust} < 2 \times 10^{-4}$ at 95% confidence, and with the higher redshift cut the Pantheon+ data are within $2\sigma$ of $\Lambda$CDM.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the Type Ia supernova absolute magnitude $M$ is a single redshift-independent constant after light-curve corrections, so if $M$ drifts with redshift that drift is absorbed into the fitted DDR parameter $\epsilon$ and a real violation of distance duality could be hidden.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the null result holds, the DESI DR2 dark-energy hint does not require nontransparent physics, and distance duality can be kept as a working assumption in future $w_0$–$w_a$ analyses.
  • DDR violations should be marginalized over in dark-energy fits: allowing $\epsilon$ to float enlarges errors on the equation-of-state parameters by 30–50%, which matters for assessing the significance of any deviation from $\Lambda$CDM.
  • The negative sign of the local-calibration result rules out photon-axion mixing and gray intergalactic dust as solutions to the Hubble tension, because both dim supernovae, while the data prefer brighter supernovae.
  • The new limits $\Omega_{\rm dust} < 2 \times 10^{-4}$ and $g_{a\gamma} < 2\text{–}6 \times 10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ become reference points for intergalactic opacity and axion searches, and the paper forecasts roughly a factor-of-two improvement with Roman Space Telescope and stage-IV BAO data.
  • The Pantheon+ sample with a minimum redshift cut $z_{\rm min} > 0.023$ gives dark-energy constraints within $2\sigma$ of $\Lambda$CDM, indicating that reported hints of evolving dark energy depend on the redshift selection and on whether DDR deviations are allowed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's key assumption would fit a redshift-dependent absolute magnitude $M(z)$; if $\epsilon$ shifts away from zero when that freedom is added, the null result is an artifact of the constant-$M$ assumption rather than a statement about cosmic transparency.
  • The same $\epsilon$ parametrization could be applied to independent distance probes such as strong-lensing time delays or gravitational-wave standard sirens, which do not rely on supernova absolute calibration, and could break the degeneracy between a true DDR violation and an evolving $M$.
  • The sign asymmetry in the local-calibrated fit suggests that if a real DDR violation exists, it would have to brighten supernovae with redshift; checking rest-frame color evolution of high-redshift supernovae against low-redshift calibrators would be a targeted test of that brightening.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper tests the distance duality relation (DDR) by introducing a free parameter ϵ in the luminosity distance-redshift relation, d_L = d_A(1+z)^(2+ϵ), and fitting it jointly with dark energy parameters. The analysis uses three SN Ia compilations (Pantheon+, Union, DES), DESI DR2 BAO data, and a compressed Planck likelihood, under both a CPL dark energy parametrization and a physically motivated thawing-quintessence model. The main findings are: (i) for uncalibrated SN Ia absolute magnitudes, ϵ is consistent with zero in all combinations, independent of the SN sample and dark energy model; (ii) including the local Cepheid calibration yields a significant negative ϵ (ϵ = -0.091 ± 0.024 for CPL), implying SNe Ia are brighter than in the DDR-valid case, so dimming mechanisms cannot address the Hubble tension; (iii) allowing nonzero ϵ increases dark energy equation-of-state errors by 30-50%; and (iv) the results are translated into constraints on photon-axion coupling (g_aγ < 2-6 × 10^-12 GeV^-1 in the text) and intergalactic gray dust (Ω_dust < 2 × 10^-4 at 95% C.L.), plus forecasts for future surveys.

Significance. If the central null result is robust, the paper provides timely and useful constraints: it directly ties the DDR assumption to the DESI DR2 dark-energy inference, shows that the local-calibration discrepancy cannot be explained by photon-axion or gray-dust dimming (since a brightening is required), and gives competitive limits on intergalactic dust and light axions that marginalize over dark energy. The use of three SN compilations, two dark energy models, and a public BAO covariance (GitHub) are clear strengths. The main limitation is that the headline 'no deviation' claim rests on a constant SN absolute magnitude; a redshift-dependent M is degenerate with ϵ, and the difference between the uncalibrated and Cepheid-calibrated fits highlights this sensitivity. There is also an internal inconsistency between the abstract's axion coupling limit (10^-12) and the text (2-6 × 10^-12). These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the overall approach, but the strength of the conclusions should be tempered.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.2) and Eq. (2.6)] The central null result in Secs. 3.1 and 3.2 is obtained by treating the SN Ia absolute magnitude M in Eq. (2.6) as a single redshift-independent constant, while ϵ enters the distance modulus through Eq. (2.2) as 5ϵ log10(1+z). Therefore any unmodeled redshift-dependent component in M (e.g., SN Ia population drift, selection effects, K-correction residuals) is absorbed into ϵ. The quoted maximum allowed luminosity shift of Δm ~ 0.05 mag is the same order as the systematic budget of modern SN Ia samples, and the offset between the uncalibrated fit (ϵ = -0.014 ± 0.037) and the Cepheid-calibrated fit (ϵ = -0.091 ± 0.024) is exactly the signature a redshift-evolving M would produce. The authors should demonstrate robustness against a parametric M(z) drift before claiming a model- and compilation-independent null result in the abstract.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1] The abstract states a limit of g_aγ < 10^-12 GeV^-1, but Sec. 4.1 and the Conclusion report g_aγ < 2-6 × 10^-12 GeV^-1 depending on the assumed intergalactic magnetic field strength. These numbers differ by a factor of 2-6, so the abstract overstates the actual constraint. The authors should correct the abstract and, in Sec. 4.1, specify exactly which assumed field strength and domain size produce which limiting value.
  3. [Sec. 3.1 and Table 1] The claim that Pantheon+ constraints on dark energy are 'within 2σ of ΛCDM' relies on the z_min > 0.023 cut, which is not the standard cut used in Pantheon+ cosmology analyses (typically z_min ~ 0.01). The Union and DES samples are unaffected by this cut, so the 'independent of SN Ia compilation' statement in the abstract is not fully tested for the dark-energy inference. The authors should present the Pantheon+ results with the standard cut and discuss how the conclusions change, or provide a stronger justification for the non-standard cut than reference to the Hubble-flow selection.
  4. [Sec. 2.2] The compressed CMB likelihood, using only R, l_A, and Ω_b h^2, is a strong reduction of Planck data. Although Ref. [36] is cited as validating the compression, the authors do not demonstrate that this approximation remains accurate for the specific combination of free ϵ, free dark energy parameters, and the two dark energy models used here. A comparison to the full Planck likelihood for at least one fiducial case would strengthen the dark-energy inference, which is central to the paper's discussion of the DESI results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The text mentions that a 'simplified ΛCDM model' is also tested, but no results for that model are presented in the tables or figures; either add the constraints or remove the statement.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption states that the Union and DES samples 'indicate deviations from a cosmological constant at high significance,' but the figure appears to show constraints on ϵ and dark energy parameters; please clarify which quantity deviates and where the stated significance comes from.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.2)] The sign convention for ϵ should be stated explicitly: a positive ϵ increases d_L and therefore dims SNe Ia, while a negative ϵ brightens them. This would help readers interpret the negative values reported in Sec. 3.3.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] In the forecasts, 'la < 0.2' should be 'R_H/L_a < 0.2' to maintain consistent notation with the rest of the paper.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors, e.g., 'vhere' (Sec. 1), 'garvity' (Sec. 1), 'ans estimata' (Sec. 3.3), and 'we do not use employ' (Sec. 4.1). A careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DDR parameter and the physical-scenario constraints are fitted from external data and converted using independently sourced relations.

full rationale

The paper's central DDR statement (Sec. 3.1, Sec. 3.4) is the posterior of fitting epsilon in Eq. (2.2) to SNe Ia, BAO and CMB data, with the SN absolute magnitude M marginalized as a constant in Eq. (2.6). A fitted parameter being reported as a null measurement is not circular by construction: epsilon is not defined in terms of the result, and no equation is reused as its own output. The photon-axion and gray-dust analyses introduce separate physical models (Eqs. 4.1-4.3, B.1-B.2) with external parameters (B = 1 nG, Ldom = 1 Mpc, SMC opacity from Weingartner & Draine 2001), so the coupling and Omega_dust limits are independent transformations of the fits rather than renamings of epsilon. The self-citations ([30], [47], [52], [65]) are contextual, support systematic-error magnitudes, or provide a similar dust analysis; none carries the derivation by itself. The skeptic concern that a redshift-dependent M(z) would be absorbed into epsilon is a systematics/robustness limitation, not a circular reduction, because Eq. (2.6) and Eq. (2.2) have different redshift dependences and are not identical by construction. No quoted equation reduces to the paper's own input in a way that meets the circularity test.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed constancy of the SN Ia absolute magnitude after standardization, the flat FLRW baseline, the adequacy of the compressed CMB likelihood, and external parameters (B, Ldom, kappa) for the physical scenarios. No new particles or entities are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (5)
  • epsilon (DDR deviation parameter) = -0.014 +/- 0.037 (CMB+BAO+SN, CPL); -0.091 +/- 0.024 (with local Cepheid calibration)
    Parametrizes deviation from distance duality in dL = dA (1+z)^(2+epsilon); fitted to SN+BAO+CMB data.
  • Omega_dust (gray intergalactic dust density) = < 2e-4 at 95% CL (CPL); < 8.9e-5 (thawing)
    Amplitude of gray dust attenuation in eq. B.1, fitted simultaneously with dark energy parameters.
  • gamma (dust redshift evolution index) = not quoted
    Power-law redshift evolution of dust density in eq. B.2; stated as a free parameter in the fits.
  • M (SN Ia absolute magnitude) = marginalized, not quoted
    Absolute luminosity of SNe Ia; marginalized over in the uncalibrated fits, fixed by Cepheids in the local calibration case.
  • RH/La (inverse photon-axion interaction lengthscale) = < 1.01 (CPL), < 0.37 (thawing) at 95% CL
    Constraint on the axion conversion length scale from the distance data; converted to coupling using assumed B and Ldom.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric with no spatial curvature
    Equations (2.3)-(2.5) use a flat FRW geometry; the compressed CMB likelihood [36] is used without varying Omega_K.
  • domain assumption Etherington distance duality holds in the baseline and deviations are parametrized by epsilon
    The paper tests the DDR; the baseline model assumes metric gravity and transparency, with epsilon capturing violations in eq. (2.2).
  • domain assumption SN Ia standardization with constant M, alpha, beta and known host/bias corrections
    Eq. (2.6) treats M, alpha, beta as constants from the compilations; violation of this assumption is the main systematic threat to the DDR null result.
  • domain assumption Compressed CMB likelihood from [36] is an adequate proxy for the full Planck likelihood
    Used in section 2.2; the authors cite [36] for agreement with the full likelihood.
  • domain assumption Intergalactic magnetic field strength B = 1 nG and domain size Ldom = 1 Mpc for axion conversion
    Appendix A converts the fitted length scale to coupling using these assumed IGM parameters, following [23].
  • domain assumption SMC opacity for intergalactic dust
    Appendix B adopts kappa = 1.54e3 cm^2/g from [64], assuming gray dust; any color dependence is degenerate with the SALT2 color correction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implications for dark energy of cosmic transparency in light of DESI data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IWCD37ND

@misc{pith2026250622599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implications for dark energy of cosmic transparency in light of DESI data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IWCD37ND}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22599}
}
abstract

The distance duality relation (DDR) between luminosity and angular diameter distances holds if gravity is described by a metric theory and the universe is transparent. Recent cosmological inferences using Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia), baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations have suggested that dark energy may evolve in time. We test how the assumption of distance duality impacts dark energy inference. Marginalizing over the absolute SNe~Ia luminosity, we find no deviation from the DDR, independent of the SN~Ia compilation used, or the assumed dark energy model. This corresponds a maximum deviation in the SN~Ia luminosity of $\Delta m \sim 0.05$ mag at the highest redshift. Allowing for deviations in the DDR increases the errors in the dark energy equation of state parameters (EoS) by 30-50$\%$. For the Pantheon+ compilation the constraints on dark energy are within $2\sigma$ of $\Lambda$CDM when applying a more realistic minimum redshift cut $z_{\rm min} >0.023$. We constrain possible physical scenarios that can impact cosmic transparency, specifically photon-axion mixing and the presence of (gray) intergalactic (IG) dust, in the latter case limiting the dust density to $\Omega_{\rm dust}<2 \times 10^{-4}$ at 95\% C.L. When using the local Cepheid calibration of the SNe~Ia absolute luminosity, a significant deviation from the DDR relation (for which $\epsilon=0$) is preferred. However, the best fit parameter value $\epsilon = -0.091 \pm 0.024$ requires the SNe~Ia to be brighter than the case with DDR valid, therefore, neither of the physical scenarios which dim the SNe can explain the high $H_0$. Constraints on the photon-axion interaction length scale suggest a limit on the coupling constant of $g_{a\gamma} < 10^{-12}\,{\rm GeV}^{-1}$.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. 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. Controlled Tension Forecasting: Quantifying Cross-Probe Biases in $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Controlled mock analyses show that cross-probe calibration tensions — in matter density, H0, supernova brightness, or sound horizon — can fake 3–10σ apparent dynamical-dark-energy signals while the true cosmology is ΛCDM.

  3. Crosschecking Cosmic Distances from DESI BAO and DES SNe

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

    For DESI DR2 BAO versus DES SNe, the comoving-distance ratio is flat but the inverse-Hubble-distance ratio falls with redshift at 2.3–2.5σ, which the authors attribute to systematics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [36]

    Bansal and D

    P. Bansal and D. Huterer, Expansion-history preferences of DESI and external data , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2502.07185 [ 2502.07185]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Riess, A.V

    A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P.M. Garnavich et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant, AJ 116 (1998) 1009 [ astro-ph/9805201]

    arXiv 1998

  3. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R.A. Knop, P. Nugent, P.G. Castro et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae , ApJ 517 (1999) 565 [astro-ph/9812133]

    arXiv 1999

  4. [3]

    Lodha, R

    K. Lodha, R. Calderon, W.L. Matthewson, A. Shafieloo, M. Ishak, J. Pan et al., Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2503.14743 [2503.14743]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    W.J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa and P.G. Ferreira,Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations, arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2502.04929 [ 2502.04929]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    Wolf, P.G

    W.J. Wolf, P.G. Ferreira and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa,Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy , PRD 111 (2025) L041303 [ 2409.17019]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Ure˜ na-L´ opez, F

    L.A. Ure˜ na-L´ opez, F. Lozano-Rodr ´ ıguez, J.O. Rom´ an-Herrera, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, D. Bianchi et al., Updated cosmological constraints on axion dark energy with DESI , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2503.20178 [2503.20178]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    Pan and G

    J. Pan and G. Ye, Non-minimally coupled gravity constraints from DESI DR2 data , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2503.19898 [ 2503.19898]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Brout, G

    D. Brout, G. Taylor, D. Scolnic, C.M. Wood, B.M. Rose, M. Vincenzi et al., The Pantheon+ Analysis: SuperCal-fragilistic Cross Calibration, Retrained SALT2 Light-curve Model, and Calibration Systematic Uncertainty , ApJ 938 (2022) 111 [ 2112.03864]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A.G. Kim et al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework , arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2311.12098 [ 2311.12098]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam et al., The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with ∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set , ApJL 973 (2024) L14 [ 2401.02929]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , A&A 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Collaboration, M

    D. Collaboration, M. Abdul-Karim, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, L. Allen et al., Desi dr2 results ii: Measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmological constraints , 2025

    2025

  6. [13]

    Hogg, Distance measures in cosmology, arXiv e-prints (1999) astro [ astro-ph/9905116]

    D.W. Hogg, Distance measures in cosmology, arXiv e-prints (1999) astro [ astro-ph/9905116]

    1999 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Etherington, On the Definition of Distance in General Relativity

    I.M.H. Etherington, On the Definition of Distance in General Relativity. , Philosophical Magazine 15 (1933) 761

    1933

  8. [15]

    Renzi, N.B

    F. Renzi, N.B. Hogg and W. Giar` e, The resilience of the Etherington-Hubble relation , MNRAS 513 (2022) 4004 [ 2112.05701]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Dinda and R

    B.R. Dinda and R. Maartens, Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2504.15190 [ 2504.15190]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Johansson and E

    J. Johansson and E. M¨ ortsell,Combined constraints on intergalactic dust from quasar colours and the soft X-ray background , MNRAS 426 (2012) 3360 [ 1209.0553]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Mirizzi, G.G

    A. Mirizzi, G.G. Raffelt and P.D. Serpico, Photon-axion conversion as a mechanism for supernova dimming: Limits from CMB spectral distortion , PRD 72 (2005) 023501 [astro-ph/0506078]. – 11 –

    2005 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Mirizzi, G.G

    A. Mirizzi, G.G. Raffelt1 and P.D. Serpico, Photon-Axion Conversion in Intergalactic Magnetic Fields and Cosmological Consequences , in Axions, M. Kuster, G. Raffelt and B. Beltr´ an, eds., vol. 741, p. 115 (2008), DOI

    2008

  13. [21]

    Bassett and M

    B.A. Bassett and M. Kunz, Cosmic Acceleration versus Axion-Photon Mixing , ApJ 607 (2004) 661 [astro-ph/0311495]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bassett and M

    B.A. Bassett and M. Kunz, Cosmic distance-duality as a probe of exotic physics and acceleration, PRD 69 (2004) 101305 [ astro-ph/0312443]

    2004 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Buen-Abad, J

    M.A. Buen-Abad, J. Fan and C. Sun, Constraints on Axions from Cosmic Distance Measurements, arXiv e-prints (2020) arXiv:2011.05993 [ 2011.05993]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mortsell and A

    E. Mortsell and A. Goobar, Constraining photon-axion oscillations using quasar spectra , JCAP 04 (2003) 003 [ astro-ph/0303081]

    2003 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ostman and E

    L. Ostman and E. Mortsell, Limiting the dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae , JCAP 02 (2005) 005 [ astro-ph/0410501]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Eskilt and E

    J.R. Eskilt and E. Komatsu, Improved constraints on cosmic birefringence from the WMAP and Planck cosmic microwave background polarization data , PRD 106 (2022) 063503 [ 2205.13962]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Eskilt, D.J

    J.R. Eskilt, D.J. Watts, R. Aurlien, A. Basyrov, M. Bersanelli, M. Brilenkov et al., COSMOGLOBE DR1 results. II. Constraints on isotropic cosmic birefringence from reprocessed WMAP and Planck LFI data , A&A 679 (2023) A144 [ 2305.02268]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Riess, W

    A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano et al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team , ApJL 934 (2022) L7 [ 2112.04510]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G.F

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G.F. Abell´ an, A.P. S´ anchez, S.J. Witte, V. Poulin and J. Lesgourgues,The H 0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models , PhysRep 984 (2022) 1 [ 2107.10291]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M¨ ortsell and S

    E. M¨ ortsell and S. Dhawan,Does the Hubble constant tension call for new physics? , JCAP 2018 (2018) 025 [ 1801.07260]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bernal, L

    J.L. Bernal, L. Verde and A.G. Riess, The trouble with H 0, JCAP 2016 (2016) 019 [1607.05617]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hounsell, D

    R. Hounsell, D. Scolnic, R.J. Foley, R. Kessler, V. Miranda, A. Avelino et al., Simulations of the WFIRST Supernova Survey and Forecasts of Cosmological Constraints , ApJ 867 (2018) 23 [1702.01747]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Collaboration, R

    T.L.D.E.S. Collaboration, R. Mandelbaum, T. Eifler, R. Hloˇ zek, T. Collett, E. Gawiser et al., The lsst dark energy science collaboration (desc) science requirements document , 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Feroz, M.P

    F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson and M. Bridges, MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics , MNRAS 398 (2009) 1601 [ 0809.3437]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Buchner, A

    J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, C. Rangel, M. Brightman et al., X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue , A&A 564 (2014) A125 [ 1402.0004]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Adame, J

    DESI Collaboration, A.G. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D.M. Alexander et al., DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations , arXiv e-prints (2024) arXiv:2404.03002 [ 2404.03002]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Brieden, H

    S. Brieden, H. Gil-Mar ´ ın and L. Verde,A tale of two (or more) h’s , JCAP 2023 (2023) 023 [2212.04522]. – 12 –

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter , International Journal of Modern Physics D 10 (2001) 213 [ gr-qc/0009008]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Linder, Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe , PRL 90 (2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    E.V. Linder, Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe , PRL 90 (2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    2003 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Camilleri, T.M

    R. Camilleri, T.M. Davis, M. Vincenzi, P. Shah, J. Frieman, R. Kessler et al., The dark energy survey supernova program: investigating beyond- ΛCDM, MNRAS 533 (2024) 2615 [2406.05048]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Peirone, M

    S. Peirone, M. Martinelli, M. Raveri and A. Silvestri, Impact of theoretical priors in cosmological analyses: The case of single field quintessence , PRD 96 (2017) 063524 [1702.06526]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Mukhopadhyay, S

    U. Mukhopadhyay, S. Haridasu, A.A. Sen and S. Dhawan, Inferring dark energy properties from the scale factor parametrization , PRD 110 (2024) 123516 [ 2407.10845]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Efstathiou, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2505.02658 [2505.02658]

    G. Efstathiou, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from a Different Angle , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2505.02658 [2505.02658]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Caldwell and E.V

    R.R. Caldwell and E.V. Linder, Limits of Quintessence , PRL 95 (2005) 141301 [astro-ph/0505494]

    2005 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Shajib and J.A

    A.J. Shajib and J.A. Frieman, Evolving dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2502.06929 [ 2502.06929]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Dhawan, A

    S. Dhawan, A. Goobar, E. M¨ ortsell, R. Amanullah and U. Feindt, Narrowing down the possible explanations of cosmic acceleration with geometric probes , JCAP 2017 (2017) 040 [1705.05768]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Linder, Quintessence’s last stand? , PRD 91 (2015) 063006 [ 1501.01634]

    E.V. Linder, Quintessence’s last stand? , PRD 91 (2015) 063006 [ 1501.01634]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Frieman, C.T

    J.A. Frieman, C.T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga, Cosmology with Ultralight Pseudo Nambu-Goldstone Bosons , PRL 75 (1995) 2077 [ astro-ph/9505060]

    1995 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Smer-Barreto and A.R

    V. Smer-Barreto and A.R. Liddle, Planck satellite constraints on pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson quintessence, JCAP 2017 (2017) 023 [ 1503.06100]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, Hint towards inconsistency between BAO and Supernovae Dataset: The Evidence of Redshift Evolving Dark Energy from DESI DR2 is Absent , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2504.16868 [ 2504.16868]

    2025

  43. [52]

    Dhawan, B

    S. Dhawan, B. Popovic and A. Goobar, The axis of systematic bias in SN Ia cosmology and implications for DESI 2024 results , MNRAS (2025) [ 2409.18668]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Teixeira, W

    E.M. Teixeira, W. Giar` e, N.B. Hogg, T. Montandon, A. Poudou and V. Poulin, Implications of distance duality violation for the H0 tension and evolving dark energy , arXiv e-prints (2025) arXiv:2504.10464 [2504.10464]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [54]

    13 (2017) 584 [ 1705.02290]

    CAST collaboration, New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction , Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 584 [ 1705.02290]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Sisk-Reyn´ es, J.H

    J. Sisk-Reyn´ es, J.H. Matthews, C.S. Reynolds, H.R. Russell, R.N. Smith and M.C.D. Marsh, New constraints on light axion-like particles using Chandra transmission grating spectroscopy of the powerful cluster-hosted quasar H1821+643 , MNRAS 510 (2022) 1264 [ 2109.03261]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    M¨ ortsell, L

    E. M¨ ortsell, L. Bergstr¨ om and A. Goobar,Photon-axion oscillations and type Ia supernovae , PRD 66 (2002) 047702 [ astro-ph/0202153]

    2002 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Mukherjee, R

    S. Mukherjee, R. Khatri and B.D. Wandelt, Constraints on non-resonant photon-axion conversion from the Planck satellite data , JCAP 2019 (2019) 031 [ 1811.11177]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Cs´ aki, N

    C. Cs´ aki, N. Kaloper and J. Terning, Effects of the intergalactic plasma on supernova dimming via photon-axion oscillations , Physics Letters B 535 (2002) 33 [ hep-ph/0112212]. – 13 – 64.5 66.0 67.5 69.0 H0 0.96 0.88 0.80 0.72 w0 0.300 0.315 0.330 0.345 M 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 RH/...

    2002 arXiv

  50. [59]

    INVISIBLE

    P. Sikivie, Experimental Tests of the “INVISIBLE” Axion , PRL 52 (1984) 695

    1984

  51. [60]

    Grossman, S

    Y. Grossman, S. Roy and J. Zupan, Effects of initial axion production and photon axion oscillation on type Ia supernova dimming , Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 23 [ hep-ph/0204216]

    2002 arXiv

  52. [61]

    M´ enard and M

    B. M´ enard and M. Fukugita,Cosmic Dust in Mg II Absorbers , ApJ 754 (2012) 116 [1204.1978]

    2012 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Dijkstra and A

    M. Dijkstra and A. Loeb, Upper limit on dimming of cosmological sources by intergalactic grey dust from the soft X-ray background , MNRAS 397 (2009) 1976 [ 0902.4703]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Fukugita, Global amount of dust in the universe , arXiv e-prints (2011) arXiv:1103.4191 [1103.4191]

    M. Fukugita, Global amount of dust in the universe , arXiv e-prints (2011) arXiv:1103.4191 [1103.4191]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Weingartner and B.T

    J.C. Weingartner and B.T. Draine, Dust Grain-Size Distributions and Extinction in the Milky Way, Large Magellanic Cloud, and Small Magellanic Cloud , ApJ 548 (2001) 296 [astro-ph/0008146]

    2001 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Goobar, S

    A. Goobar, S. Dhawan and D. Scolnic, The cosmic transparency measured with Type Ia supernovae: implications for intergalactic dust , MNRAS 477 (2018) L75 [ 1803.08592]. A Deriving Photon-axion coupling In this section, we present the formalism used to infer the photon-axion co...

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.