pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29805 · v1 · pith:G3I253ACnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Model Independent Probe of Variation of Cosmic Opacity with Redshift

Savita Gahlaut , Meetu Luthra This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic opacitydistance dualitytype Ia supernovaestrong gravitational lensingredshift variationPantheon+
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supernova distances show cosmic opacity varying with redshift when tested against lensing distances.

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

The paper develops a model-independent way to check whether the universe lets light through without attenuation at different distances. It builds comoving distances that do not depend on opacity from strong gravitational lensing systems and compares them to distances inferred from type Ia supernovae in the Pantheon+ catalog through the distance duality relation. On average across redshifts from 0.01 to 2.26 the data are consistent with a transparent universe, but splitting the sample into bins of width 0.1 reveals clear deviations from zero opacity in several intervals. The strongest signal appears in the bin 0.3 to 0.4 where the opacity parameter reaches a negative value. This result would mean that supernova-based measurements of cosmic expansion carry redshift-dependent biases that must be accounted for when deriving cosmological parameters.

Core claim

Using strong gravitational lensing data to construct opacity-independent comoving distances and Pantheon+ supernovae for opacity-dependent distances, the distance duality equation constrains the opacity parameter ε. The analysis finds the universe transparent on average from z=0.01 to 2.26, yet shows significant deviations in redshift bins of width 0.1, notably ε = -0.4283^{+0.1914}_{-0.2027} at 0.3 < z ≤ 0.4, indicating that current SNe Ia observations support variation of opacity with redshift.

What carries the argument

The distance duality relation applied between opacity-independent comoving distances from strong gravitational lensing and opacity-dependent distances from supernovae to isolate the opacity parameter ε.

If this is right

  • Cosmological parameters derived from supernovae will carry systematic biases in the redshift intervals where opacity deviates from zero.
  • The assumption of uniform transparency across cosmic time does not hold in the binned Pantheon+ data.
  • The method supplies a cosmology-independent consistency test that can be applied to future larger samples of lensing systems and supernovae.
  • Opacity variation implies that dust distribution or photon attenuation efficiency changes across different cosmic epochs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the variation holds, distance calibrations for other probes such as baryon acoustic oscillations at overlapping redshifts would need similar opacity corrections.
  • The result could link to independent studies of intergalactic dust evolution or galaxy formation history.
  • Repeating the test with finer redshift bins or additional lensing statistics would map the functional form of opacity(z) more precisely.

Load-bearing premise

Strong gravitational lensing distances remain strictly free of cosmic opacity while supernova distances absorb the entire opacity signal, with no other redshift-dependent systematics that differ between the two probes.

What would settle it

An independent distance measurement, such as from gamma-ray bursts, that yields an opacity parameter consistent with zero in the 0.3 to 0.4 redshift bin would falsify the reported variation.

read the original abstract

Cosmic opacity may vary spatially due to the inhomogeneous distribution of dust, its grain properties, and the efficiency of photon attenuation. In this work, we present a model independent method to investigate the variation of cosmic opacity with redshift. Using strong gravitational lensing data we construct the opacity independent comoving distance function and we use latest supernovae type Ia (SNe Ia) Pantheon+ data to estimate the opacity dependent comoving distances. Using the distance duality equation, opacity parameter is constrained. Our analysis indicates a transparent Universe on average over the redshift range ($0.01 \leq z \leq 2.26137$) of Pantheon+ sample. However, if we split the dataset into subsamples with redshift bins of width $\bigtriangleup z = 0.1$, we find appreciable deviation from the transparency in several redshift intervals. Particularly, in the redshift range $0.3 < z \leq 0.4$, the opacity parameter is $\epsilon = -0.4283^{+0.1914}_{-0.2027}$. The current SNe Ia observations indicate the variation of opacity parameter with redshift. These results may have a significant impact on the values of the cosmological parameters deduced from the SNe Ia observations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a model-independent method to probe redshift variation of cosmic opacity by constructing an opacity-independent comoving distance function from strong gravitational lensing systems and comparing it to opacity-dependent distances from the Pantheon+ SNe Ia sample via the distance-duality relation. They report that the universe appears transparent on average over 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 2.26137, but find significant deviations when binning into intervals of width Δz = 0.1, with the most notable result ε = -0.4283^{+0.1914}_{-0.2027} in 0.3 < z ≤ 0.4, concluding that current SNe Ia data indicate variation of the opacity parameter with redshift.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing the load-bearing assumptions, it would suggest redshift-dependent cosmic opacity that could bias cosmological parameters inferred from SNe Ia observations. The approach is model-independent in its use of the distance-duality relation and bin-by-bin fitting, but its impact depends on validating that strong-lensing distances carry no opacity signal and that no other redshift-dependent systematics are present between the probes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on binned results): the reported ε = -0.4283^{+0.1914}_{-0.2027} in 0.3 < z ≤ 0.4 is presented without any information on the number of SNe Ia or lensing systems falling in that bin, the precise error-propagation procedure, or inclusion of cross-probe covariance; given the small Δz = 0.1 width, this undermines assessment of whether the deviation is statistically robust or an artifact of sparse sampling.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (description of distance construction): the central claim that SGL supplies strictly opacity-independent comoving distances while SNe Ia carry the full opacity signal is load-bearing for the binned ε variation; without explicit tests for redshift-dependent mismatches (lens modeling biases, selection functions, SNe standardization evolution, or host-dust effects), any such systematics would be absorbed into the fitted ε values.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the LaTeX command \bigtriangleup should be replaced by \Delta for standard notation of the bin width.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments highlight important points for improving clarity and robustness. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph on binned results): the reported ε = -0.4283^{+0.1914}_{-0.2027} in 0.3 < z ≤ 0.4 is presented without any information on the number of SNe Ia or lensing systems falling in that bin, the precise error-propagation procedure, or inclusion of cross-probe covariance; given the small Δz = 0.1 width, this undermines assessment of whether the deviation is statistically robust or an artifact of sparse sampling.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional context on sample sizes and analysis details to allow readers to assess robustness. The main text (Section 3) already reports the bin contents and error propagation via standard propagation from the distance-duality relation fits, treating the two probes as independent given their distinct observational origins. In the revised version we will update the abstract to state the number of SNe Ia and strong-lensing systems in the 0.3 < z ≤ 0.4 bin and add a brief clause on the error procedure. We will also add a short discussion of possible cross-probe covariance in the methods section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (description of distance construction): the central claim that SGL supplies strictly opacity-independent comoving distances while SNe Ia carry the full opacity signal is load-bearing for the binned ε variation; without explicit tests for redshift-dependent mismatches (lens modeling biases, selection functions, SNe standardization evolution, or host-dust effects), any such systematics would be absorbed into the fitted ε values.

    Authors: The assumption follows from the physical distinction that strong-lensing distances are geometric (angular-diameter distances from image separations and time delays) while SNe Ia distances are luminosity distances directly sensitive to photon attenuation. However, we accept that unaccounted redshift-dependent systematics between the datasets could be absorbed into ε. In the revision we will add an explicit subsection discussing lens-modeling uncertainties, selection functions, possible SNe standardization evolution, and host-dust effects, together with arguments (supported by existing literature) why these are unlikely to produce the observed bin-to-bin pattern. Where feasible we will include simple sensitivity checks. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct empirical measurement via distance comparison

full rationale

The paper constructs an opacity-independent comoving distance from strong gravitational lensing systems and an opacity-dependent distance from Pantheon+ SNe Ia data, then applies the distance-duality relation to extract and bin-fit the opacity parameter ε(z). The reported binned values (e.g., ε ≈ -0.43 in 0.3 < z ≤ 0.4) are the direct numerical output of this comparison and fitting procedure, presented as observational constraints rather than any first-principles derivation or renamed prediction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or self-definitional steps appear in the derivation chain; the result remains self-contained as a measurement under the DDR assumption and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two domain assumptions (lensing distances are opacity-free; distance duality holds except for opacity) and on fitting a free parameter ε in each chosen redshift bin. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • opacity parameter ε per redshift bin = -0.4283 (0.3<z≤0.4)
    Fitted to the difference between lensing and supernova distances inside each Δz=0.1 interval; example value given for 0.3<z≤0.4
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Strong gravitational lensing supplies comoving distances independent of cosmic opacity
    Invoked to construct the opacity-independent distance function
  • domain assumption Distance duality relation holds exactly in the absence of opacity
    Used to convert the distance difference into the opacity parameter ε

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5751 in / 1523 out tokens · 40382 ms · 2026-06-29T06:13:07.224582+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  3. [3]

    N., 1999, ApJ, 512, L19

    Aguirre A. N., 1999, ApJ, 512, L19

    1999

  4. [4]

    Aguirre A., 1999, ApJ, 525, 583

    1999

  5. [5]

    N., 2000, ApJ, 533, 1

    Aguirre A. N., 2000, ApJ, 533, 1

    2000

  6. [6]

    & Jimenezd R., 2010, JCAP, 10,024

    Avgoustidis A., Burrage C., Redondo J., Verded L. & Jimenezd R., 2010, JCAP, 10,024

    2010

  7. [7]

    & Moustakas J., 2008, Astrophys

    Bovy J., Hogg D.W. & Moustakas J., 2008, Astrophys. J. 688, 198

    2008

  8. [8]

    Brout D., et al., 2022, ApJ, 938,110

    2022

  9. [9]

    Cappellari M., Bacon R., Bureau M., et. al. , 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126

    2006

  10. [10]

    , et al., 2012, JCAP, 3, 16

    Cao S. , et al., 2012, JCAP, 3, 16

    2012

  11. [11]

    Cao S., Biesiada M., Yao M., & Zhu Z.-H., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2192

    2016

  12. [12]

    & Li Z., 2012, J

    Chen J., Wu P., Yu H. & Li Z., 2012, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 10, 029

    2012

  13. [13]

    Chen J., 2016, RAA, 16, 11

    2016

  14. [14]

    & Shu Y., 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3745

    Chen Y., Li R. & Shu Y., 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3745

    2019

  15. [15]

    S., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 191

    Corasaniti P. S., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 191

    2006

  16. [16]

    Cosmology-Independent Constraints on the Etherington Relation and SNeIa Absolute Magnitude Evolution from DESI-DR2

    Das S., More S. & Alam S., 2026, arXiv:2604.02433

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    & Khurshudyan M., 2022, ,Physics of the Dark Universe 37, 101114

    Elizalde E. & Khurshudyan M., 2022, ,Physics of the Dark Universe 37, 101114

    2022

  18. [18]

    Ellis G. F. R., 2007, GReGr, 39, 1047

    2007

  19. [19]

    Etherington I. M. H., 1933, PMag, 15, 761

    1933

  20. [20]

    W., Lang D

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D. , Goodman J., 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  21. [21]

    et al., 2021,Chinese Physics C 45, 065104

    Fu X. et al., 2021,Chinese Physics C 45, 065104

    2021

  22. [22]

    Gahlaut S., 2025, RAA, 25,025019

    2025

  23. [23]

    Jorgensen I., Franx M., & Kjaergaard P., 1995, MNRAS, 273, 1097

    1995

  24. [24]

    Jorgensen I., Franx M., & Kjaergaard P., 1995 MNRAS, 276, 1341

    1995

  25. [25]

    S., 1992, ApJ 397,381

    Kochanek C. S., 1992, ApJ 397,381

    1992

  26. [26]

    S., et al., 2000, ApJ, 543, 131

    Kochanek C. S., et al., 2000, ApJ, 543, 131

    2000

  27. [27]

    Koopmans L. V. E., et al., 2006, ApJ, 649, 599

    2006

  28. [28]

    Koopmans L. V. E., et al., 2006, ApJ, 703, L51

    2006

  29. [29]

    , et al., 2013, Phy

    Liao K. , et al., 2013, Phy. Lett. B 718, 1166

    2013

  30. [30]

    , Avgoustidis A & Li Z., 2015, Phy

    Liao K. , Avgoustidis A & Li Z., 2015, Phy. Rev. D 92, 123539

    2015

  31. [31]

    & Lian Y., 2020, ApJ, 899, 71

    Liu T., Cao S., Biesiada M., Liu Y., Geng S. & Lian Y., 2020, ApJ, 899, 71

    2020

  32. [32]

    & Geng S, 2019, ApJ, 887, 163

    Ma Y.B., Cao S., Zhang J., Qi J., Liu T., Liu Y. & Geng S, 2019, ApJ, 887, 163

    2019

  33. [33]

    et al., 2008, Mon Not

    M e nard B. et al., 2008, Mon Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 385, 1053

    2008

  34. [34]

    et al., 2024, JCAP 09, 060

    Mukherjee P. et al., 2024, JCAP 09, 060

    2024

  35. [35]

    Narlikar J. V. et al., 2003, ApJ, 585, 1

    2003

  36. [36]

    O., Rix H

    Ofek E. O., Rix H. W. & Maoz D., 2003, MNRAS 343, 639

    2003

  37. [37]

    & Skara F

    Perivolaropoulos L. & Skara F.. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5, 5110

    2023

  38. [38]

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

    1999

  39. [39]

    Z., Zhao, J

    Qi, J. Z., Zhao, J. W., Cao, S., Biesiada, M., and Liu, Y. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2179

    2021

  40. [40]

    G., Filippenko A

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

    1998

  41. [41]

    G., et al., 2022, ApJ Lett., 934, L7

    Riess A. G., et al., 2022, ApJ Lett., 934, L7

    2022

  42. [42]

    Scolnic D., et al., 2022, ApJ, 938, 113 6

    2022

  43. [43]

    Treu T., et al.,2006, ApJ, 650, 1219

    2006

  44. [44]

    Vavrycuk V., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1532

    2017

  45. [45]

    Vavrycuk V., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 283

    2018

  46. [46]

    Vavrycuk V., 2019, MNRAS, 489, L63

    2019

  47. [47]

    J., 2019, ApJ, 876,66

    Wei J. J., 2019, ApJ, 876,66

    2019

  48. [48]

    and Melia F., 2020, ApJ, 897, 127

    Wei J.-J. and Melia F., 2020, ApJ, 897, 127

    2020

  49. [49]

    & Huang Q., 2020, EPJ C 80, 838

    Xu B., , K.Zhang K. & Huang Q., 2020, EPJ C 80, 838

    2020

  50. [50]

    et al., 2024, EPJ C, 84, 3

    Yang Y. et al., 2024, EPJ C, 84, 3

    2024

  51. [51]

    & Chen J., 2019, PRD, 100, 123539

    Zhou L., Fu X., Peng Z. & Chen J., 2019, PRD, 100, 123539

    2019