pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22302 · v1 · pith:N2FKBZCYnew · submitted 2026-06-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Revisiting cosmic anisotropy with the Pantheon+ compilation

Yong Zhou , Dong Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 10:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords cosmic anisotropyPantheon+ supernovaedipole fittinghemisphere comparisonisotropy testtype Ia supernovaelocal structuressurvey inhomogeneity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Pantheon+ supernova analysis attributes apparent cosmic anisotropy to local structures and uneven survey coverage rather than intrinsic directional variation.

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

The paper applies dipole fitting and hemisphere comparison methods to the full Pantheon+ sample and its redshift and survey subsamples to test for directional dependence in type Ia supernova luminosity distances. Full-sample signals are statistically weak, while low-redshift and certain survey subsets show modest directional preferences that trace back to specific inhomogeneous data groups. These preferences change or weaken when the data are divided, leading to the conclusion that the signals stem from local structures or dataset distribution rather than a global cosmic effect. A sympathetic reader would care because this finding removes a potential tension with the assumption of large-scale isotropy in standard cosmology. If the anisotropy is an artifact, supernova data continue to support a uniform expansion on cosmic scales.

Core claim

Dipole fitting on the low-redshift Pantheon+ subsample gives an amplitude of 0.952^{+0.454}_{-0.403} imes 10^{-3} at roughly 2 sigma toward (l,b) = (149.77°, -12.20°), driven mainly by surveys 5, 56, 63 and 150. Hemisphere comparison on the full sample finds a maximum anisotropy level of 0.289 imes extpm 0.052 at 1.56 sigma toward (127.97°, 17.90°), set primarily by the SNLS subsample while low- and high-redshift data suppress the signal. The authors conclude that these subsample-dependent results indicate the apparent anisotropy arises from local structures or inhomogeneous dataset distribution rather than intrinsic cosmic anisotropy.

What carries the argument

Dipole fitting and hemisphere comparison methods applied to the full Pantheon+ sample and its redshift and survey-defined subsamples to isolate directional signals in supernova distance moduli.

If this is right

  • The cosmological principle of large-scale isotropy is supported at the precision of the Pantheon+ sample once subsample artifacts are accounted for.
  • The low-redshift dipole signal is produced by the combination of four specific surveys rather than a global expansion anisotropy.
  • The hemisphere-comparison anisotropy axis is fixed by the SNLS subsample, with other redshift ranges acting to reduce the measured level.
  • Future anisotropy searches must separate survey-specific and local-structure contributions before claiming intrinsic cosmic effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar subsample-dependence checks should be applied to other supernova compilations or cosmological probes to test whether reported anisotropies are data artifacts.
  • Surveys with more uniform sky coverage could place tighter limits on any residual intrinsic anisotropy that current inhomogeneous samples cannot resolve.
  • Accounting for local peculiar-velocity fields in future analyses may further reduce apparent directional signals without invoking new physics.

Load-bearing premise

The dipole fitting and hemisphere comparison methods can reliably distinguish intrinsic directional signals from artifacts produced by local structures or uneven survey distributions when applied to Pantheon+ subsamples.

What would settle it

Detection of a statistically significant directional signal that remains consistent in amplitude and direction across multiple independent, uniformly distributed supernova subsamples not present in the current Pantheon+ compilation.

read the original abstract

We investigate cosmic anisotropy within the updated Pantheon+ sample using both the dipole fitting (DF) and hemisphere comparison (HC) methods. With the DF method, the dipole signal within the full sample is statistically weak. However, the low-$z$ subsample yields a dipole signal of $A_{\mathrm{D}} = 0.952^{+0.454}_{-0.403} \times 10^{-3}$ at $\sim 2\sigma$ significance, pointing towards $(l,b) = (149.77^\circ, -12.20^\circ)$. This signal is predominantly driven by a combined subset of surveys 5, 56, 63, and 150, which is characterized by an amplitude of $A_{\mathrm{D}} = 1.730_{-0.715}^{+0.554} \times 10^{-3}$ towards $(l,b) = (153.05^\circ, -1.25^\circ)$. For the HC method, the full sample yields a maximum anisotropy level of $\mathrm{AL}_{\mathrm{max}} = 0.289 \pm 0.052$ oriented towards $(l,b) = (127.97^\circ, 17.90^\circ)$ with a $1.56\sigma$ significance. This preferred direction is primarily determined by the highly inhomogeneous SNLS subsample, whereas the low-$z$ and high-$z$ subsamples act to suppress the anisotropy level along this axis. These subsample-dependent results suggest that the apparent anisotropy arises from local structures or the inhomogeneous distribution of the datasets rather than an intrinsic cosmic anisotropy.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the dipole fitting (DF) and hemisphere comparison (HC) methods to the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova sample. It reports a statistically weak dipole in the full sample, a ~2σ dipole (A_D ≈ 0.95 × 10^{-3}) in the low-z subsample driven by surveys 5/56/63/150, and a 1.56σ maximum anisotropy level (AL_max = 0.289) in the HC method driven by the SNLS subsample. The authors conclude that these subsample-dependent signals arise from local structures or inhomogeneous dataset distribution rather than intrinsic cosmic anisotropy.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the result would help reconcile apparent directional signals in supernova data with large-scale isotropy by attributing them to observational selection effects. The marginal significances (~2σ and 1.56σ) and explicit attribution to specific subsamples are noted, but the absence of quantitative controls on the methods limits the strength of the claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the observed signals indicate non-intrinsic anisotropy (rather than a true cosmic dipole) rests on the assumption that the DF and HC methods cleanly isolate artifacts from survey inhomogeneity and local structure. No Monte Carlo simulations, isotropic mock catalogs, or analytic estimates are described that quantify the expected spurious amplitudes and directions arising from the actual sky coverage, redshift distribution, and subsample selection alone.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported significances (∼2σ for the low-z dipole and 1.56σ for HC) are marginal; without the full covariance treatment, error budget, or bootstrap/Monte Carlo details for the directional fits, it is not possible to assess whether post-hoc subsample choices inflate the apparent signals or whether the directions are stable under resampling.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments. We address each major point below, clarifying the basis of our conclusions while acknowledging where additional quantitative tests would strengthen the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the observed signals indicate non-intrinsic anisotropy (rather than a true cosmic dipole) rests on the assumption that the DF and HC methods cleanly isolate artifacts from survey inhomogeneity and local structure. No Monte Carlo simulations, isotropic mock catalogs, or analytic estimates are described that quantify the expected spurious amplitudes and directions arising from the actual sky coverage, redshift distribution, and subsample selection alone.

    Authors: We agree that Monte Carlo simulations using isotropic mock catalogs matched to the actual sky coverage, redshift distribution, and subsample selection would provide a more rigorous quantification of expected spurious signals. Our current analysis instead relies on the empirical demonstration that both the DF and HC signals are strongly subsample-dependent, with the low-z dipole driven almost entirely by surveys 5/56/63/150 and the HC maximum driven by the SNLS subsample. This localization is inconsistent with a uniform intrinsic cosmic dipole. We will add an explicit discussion of this limitation and incorporate a basic mock-catalog test in the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The reported significances (∼2σ for the low-z dipole and 1.56σ for HC) are marginal; without the full covariance treatment, error budget, or bootstrap/Monte Carlo details for the directional fits, it is not possible to assess whether post-hoc subsample choices inflate the apparent signals or whether the directions are stable under resampling.

    Authors: The manuscript already states the marginal significances (~2σ and 1.56σ) explicitly. The quoted uncertainties are obtained directly from the dipole-fitting covariance matrix applied to each subsample. The post-hoc identification of driving surveys is presented transparently as a diagnostic step rather than a selection that artificially boosts significance; the full sample yields only a statistically weak signal. Directions remain consistent within the identified driving subsamples. We can expand the methods section with additional details on the covariance matrix and error budget in revision. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; analysis is empirical fitting with interpretive conclusion

full rationale

The paper applies the dipole fitting and hemisphere comparison methods directly to Pantheon+ data and subsamples, reporting fitted amplitudes, directions, and significances as outputs. The central claim that subsample dependence indicates non-intrinsic anisotropy is an inference drawn from those empirical results rather than any equation or self-citation that reduces the reported signals to quantities defined by the fit itself. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The work is self-contained as data-driven analysis against external supernova catalogs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the two statistical tests correctly flag artifacts when signals appear only in certain subsamples; the fitted dipole amplitude A_D and anisotropy level AL_max are free parameters determined from the data.

free parameters (2)
  • Dipole amplitude A_D
    Fitted to the low-z subsample and to the combined surveys 5,56,63,150; reported with asymmetric errors.
  • Anisotropy level AL_max
    Maximum value obtained from hemisphere comparison on the full sample.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Pantheon+ magnitude measurements and their reported uncertainties are statistically independent across surveys once redshift and survey labels are accounted for.
    Invoked when interpreting subsample-dependent signals as evidence against intrinsic anisotropy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5813 in / 1344 out tokens · 25342 ms · 2026-06-26T10:25:46.879558+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

39 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results

    G. Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results. Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/ 2013

  2. [2]

    arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020). https://doi. org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. [Erra- tum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]. arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  4. [4]

    Eriksen, F.K

    H.K. Eriksen, F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, K.M. Gorski, P.B. Lilje, Asymmetries in the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy field. Astrophys. J.605, 14–20 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1086/382267. [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 609, 1198 (2004)]. arXiv:astro- ph/0307507

    work page doi:10.1086/382267 2004

  5. [5]

    Hansen, A.J

    F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, K.M. Gorski, Testing the cosmological principle of isotropy: Local power spectrum estimates of the WMAP data. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 354, 641–665 (2004). https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08229.x. arXiv:astro- ph/0404206

    arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results

    C.L. Bennett, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results. Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 20 (2013). https: //doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20. arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 2013

  7. [7]

    Akrami, Y

    Y. Akrami, Y. Fantaye, A. Shafieloo, H.K. Eriksen, F.K. Hansen, A.J. Banday, K.M. G´ orski, Power asymmetry in WMAP and Planck temperature sky maps as measured by a local variance estimator. Astrophys. J. Lett.784, L42 (2014). https://doi.org/10. 1088/2041-8205/784/2/L42. arXiv:1402.0870 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [9]

    Akrami, et al., Planck 2018 results

    Y. Akrami, et al., Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB. Astron. Astrophys.641, A7 (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201935201. arXiv:1906.02552 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935201 2018

  9. [10]

    J. Kim, P. Naselsky, Anomalous parity asymmetry of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe power spectrum data at low multipoles. Astrophys. J. Lett.714, L265–L267 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 2041-8205/714/2/L265. arXiv:1001.4613 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [12]

    Gruppuso, F

    A. Gruppuso, F. Finelli, P. Natoli, F. Paci, P. Cabella, A. De Rosa, N. Mandolesi, New constraints on Parity Symmetry from a re- analysis of the WMAP-7 low resolution power spectra. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.411, 1445–1452 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2966.2010.17773.x. arXiv:1006.1979 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  11. [14]

    Directional dependence of CMB parity asymmetry

    W. Zhao, Directional dependence of CMB parity asymmetry. Phys. Rev. D89(2), 023010 (2014). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.023010. arXiv:1306.0955 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.023010 2014

  12. [15]

    Hutsemekers, R

    D. Hutsemekers, R. Cabanac, H. Lamy, D. Sluse, Mapping extreme-scale alignments of quasar polarization vectors. Astron. Astro- phys.441, 915–930 (2005). https://doi.org/ 10.1051/0004-6361:20053337. arXiv:astro- ph/0507274

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053337 2005

  13. [16]

    Evidence for the alignment of quasar radio polarizations with large quasar group axes

    V. Pelgrims, D. Hutsem´ ekers, Evidence for the alignment of quasar radio polar- izations with large quasar group axes. Astron. Astrophys.590, A53 (2016). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201526979. arXiv:1604.03937 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526979 2016

  14. [17]

    Mariano, L

    A. Mariano, L. Perivolaropoulos, Is there cor- relation between Fine Structure and Dark Energy Cosmic Dipoles? Phys. Rev. D 86, 083517 (2012). https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.86.083517. arXiv:1206.4055 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [18]

    Zhao, P.X

    W. Zhao, P.X. Wu, Y. Zhang, Anisotropy of Cosmic Acceleration. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1350060 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218271813500600. arXiv:1305.2701 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [22]

    Probing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration traced by Type Ia supernovae

    B. Javanmardi, C. Porciani, P. Kroupa, J. Pflamm-Altenburg, Probing the isotropy of cosmic acceleration traced by Type Ia supernovae. Astrophys. J.810(1), 47 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/ 810/1/47. arXiv:1507.07560 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2015

  17. [23]

    H.N. Lin, X. Li, Z. Chang, The significance of anisotropic signals hiding in the type Ia supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460(1), 617–626 (2016). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stw995. arXiv:1604.07505 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stw995 2016

  18. [26]

    A tomographic test of cosmological principle using the JLA compilation of type Ia supernovae

    Z. Chang, H.N. Lin, Y. Sang, S. Wang, A tomographic test of cosmological princi- ple using the JLA compilation of type Ia supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478(3), 3633–3639 (2018). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/sty1120. arXiv:1711.11321 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1120 2018

  19. [30]

    Testing the anisotropy of cosmic acceleration from Pantheon supernovae sample

    Z.Q. Sun, F.Y. Wang, Testing the anisotropy of cosmic acceleration from Pantheon super- novae sample. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478(4), 5153–5158 (2018). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/sty1391. arXiv:1805.09195 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1391 2018

  20. [31]

    H.K. Deng, H. Wei, Null signal for the cosmic anisotropy in the Pantheon super- novae data. Eur. Phys. J. C78(9), 755 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-018-6159-4. arXiv:1806.02773 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2018

  21. [33]

    X. Li, S.P. Zhao, L. Tang, H.N. Lin, Holo- graphic Dark Energy Model is Consistent with Pantheon SN Ia Data. Commun. Theor. Phys.71(4), 421 (2019). https://doi.org/10. 1088/0253-6102/71/4/421

    2019

  22. [34]

    D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, Z. Chang, Anisotropy of the Universe via the Pantheon supernovae sample revisited. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486(4), 5679–5689 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stz1259. arXiv:1903.12401 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1259 2019

  23. [35]

    Chang, D

    Z. Chang, D. Zhao, Y. Zhou, Constrain- ing the anisotropy of the Universe with the Pantheon supernovae sample. Chin. Phys. C43(12), 125102 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/43/12/125102. arXiv:1910.06883 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/12/125102 2019

  24. [37]

    Tang, H.N

    L. Tang, H.N. Lin, L. Liu, X. Li, Con- sistency of Pantheon+ supernovae with a large-scale isotropic universe*. Chin. Phys. C47(12), 125101 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1674-1137/acfaf0. arXiv:2309.11320 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acfaf0 2023

  25. [38]

    Bengaly, J.S

    C.A.P. Bengaly, J.S. Alcaniz, C. Pigozzo, Testing the isotropy of cosmic acceler- ation with the Pantheon+ and SH0ES datasets: A cosmographic analysis. Phys. Rev. D109(12), 123533 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123533. arXiv:2402.17741 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123533 2024

  26. [39]

    Yang, D.W

    Z.F. Yang, D.W. Yao, M. Le Delliou, K. Wang, Model-independent test of the cos- mic anisotropy with inverse distance ladder. Eur. Phys. J. C85(3), 339 (2025). https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13994-5. arXiv:2407.19278 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13994-5 2025

  27. [40]

    Sorrenti, R

    F. Sorrenti, R. Durrer, M. Kunz, The dipole of the Pantheon+SH0ES data. JCAP 11, 054 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2023/11/054. arXiv:2212.10328 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  28. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 1439, doi:10.1093/mnras/ stac019

    J.A. Cowell, S. Dhawan, H.J. Macpher- son, Potential signature of a quadrupolar hubble expansion in Pantheon+supernovae. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(1), 1482– 1494 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stad2788. arXiv:2212.13569 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2023

  29. [42]

    Sorrenti, R

    F. Sorrenti, R. Durrer, M. Kunz, A local infall from a cosmographic anal- ysis of Pantheon+. JCAP12, 003 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024/12/003. arXiv:2407.07002 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/ 2024

  30. [43]

    A. Sah, M. Rameez, S. Sarkar, C.G. Tsagas, Anisotropy in Pantheon+ supernovae. Eur. Phys. J. C85(5), 596 (2025). https:// doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14222-w. arXiv:2411.10838 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14222-w 2025

  31. [44]

    J.P. Hu, Y.Y. Wang, J. Hu, F.Y. Wang, Testing the cosmological principle with the 15 Pantheon+ sample and the region-fitting method. Astron. Astrophys.681, A88 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202347121. arXiv:2310.11727 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2024

  32. [45]

    J. Hu, J. Hu, X. Jia, B. Gao, F. Wang, Testing cosmic anisotropy with Pad´ e approx- imations and the latest Pantheon+ sample. Astron. Astrophys.689, A215 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450342. arXiv:2406.14827 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450342 2024

  33. [46]

    Higgs-electroweak chiral Lagrangian: One-loop renormalization group equations

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Isotropy properties of the absolute luminosity magnitudes of SnIa in the Pantheon+ and SH0ES sam- ples. Phys. Rev. D108(6), 063509 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 108.063509. arXiv:2305.12819 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2023

  34. [47]

    Tripp, A Two-parameter luminosity cor- rection for type Ia supernovae

    R. Tripp, A Two-parameter luminosity cor- rection for type Ia supernovae. Astron. Astrophys.331, 815–820 (1998)

    1998

  35. [48]

    Correcting Type Ia Supernova Distances for Selection Biases and Contamination in Photometrically Identified Samples

    R. Kessler, D. Scolnic, Correcting Type Ia Supernova Distances for Selection Biases and Contamination in Photometrically Iden- tified Samples. Astrophys. J.836(1), 56 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ 836/1/56. arXiv:1610.04677 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2017

  36. [49]

    Brout, et al., The Pantheon+ Analy- sis: Cosmological Constraints

    D. Brout, et al., The Pantheon+ Analy- sis: Cosmological Constraints. Astrophys. J. 938(2), 110 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac8e04. arXiv:2202.04077 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [50]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang, J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Ham- mer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306– 312 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1086/670067. arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  38. [51]

    M., et al

    K.M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, M. Bartelmann, HEALPix - A Framework for high resolution discretization, and fast anal- ysis of data distributed on the sphere. Astro- phys. J.622, 759–771 (2005). https://doi. org/10.1086/427976. arXiv:astro-ph/0409513

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/427976 2005

  39. [52]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon, K. Gorski, healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in Python. J. Open Source Softw.4(35), 1298 (2019). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01298 16

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019