pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2401.02929 · v4 · submitted 2024-01-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results With ~1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using The Full 5-year Dataset

DES Collaboration: T. M. C. Abbott , M. Acevedo , M. Aguena , A. Alarcon , S. Allam , O. Alves , A. Amon , F. Andrade-Oliveira
show 150 more authors
J. Annis P. Armstrong J. Asorey S. Avila D. Bacon B. A. Bassett K. Bechtol P. H. Bernardinelli G. M. Bernstein E. Bertin J. Blazek S. Bocquet D. Brooks D. Brout E. Buckley-Geer D. L. Burke H. Camacho R. Camilleri A. Campos A. Carnero Rosell D. Carollo A. Carr J. Carretero F. J. Castander R. Cawthon C. Chang R. Chen A. Choi C. Conselice M. Costanzi L. N. da Costa M. Crocce T. M. Davis D. L. DePoy S. Desai H. T. Diehl M. Dixon S. Dodelson P. Doel C. Doux A. Drlica-Wagner J. Elvin-Poole S. Everett I. Ferrero A. Fert\'e B. Flaugher R. J. Foley P. Fosalba D. Friedel J. Frieman C. Frohmaier L. Galbany J. Garc\'ia-Bellido M. Gatti E. Gaztanaga G. Giannini K. Glazebrook O. Graur D. Gruen R. A. Gruendl G. Gutierrez W. G. Hartley K. Herner S. R. Hinton D. L. Hollowood K. Honscheid D. Huterer B. Jain D. J. James N. Jeffrey E. Kasai L. Kelsey S. Kent R. Kessler A. G. Kim R. P. Kirshner E. Kovacs K. Kuehn O. Lahav J. Lee S. Lee G. F. Lewis T. S. Li C. Lidman H. Lin U. Malik J. L. Marshall P. Martini J. Mena-Fern\'andez F. Menanteau R. Miquel J. J. Mohr J. Mould J. Muir A. M\"oller E. Neilsen R. C. Nichol P. Nugent R. L. C. Ogando A. Palmese Y.-C. Pan M. Paterno W. J. Percival M. E. S. Pereira A. Pieres A. A. Plazas Malag\'on B. Popovic A. Porredon J. Prat H. Qu M. Raveri M. Rodr\'iguez-Monroy A. K. Romer A. Roodman B. Rose M. Sako E. Sanchez D. Sanchez Cid M. Schubnell D. Scolnic I. Sevilla-Noarbe P. Shah J. Allyn. Smith M. Smith M. Soares-Santos E. Suchyta M. Sullivan N. Suntzeff M. E. C. Swanson B. O. S\'anchez G. Tarle G. Taylor D. Thomas C. To M. Toy M. A. Troxel B. E. Tucker D. L. Tucker S. A. Uddin M. Vincenzi A. R. Walker N. Weaverdyck R. H. Wechsler J. Weller W. Wester P. Wiseman M. Yamamoto F. Yuan B. Zhang Y. Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 05:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords Dark Energy SurveyType Ia supernovaecosmic accelerationphotometric classificationdark energyLambdaCDMcosmological constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supernova data alone now require cosmic acceleration at over 5 sigma in flat LambdaCDM.

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

The Dark Energy Survey has assembled 1635 photometrically classified Type Ia supernovae at redshifts 0.10 to 1.13 using a machine-learning algorithm on four-band light curves. Combined with a small low-redshift anchor sample, these data alone constrain Omega_m to 0.352 plus or minus 0.017 in flat LambdaCDM and establish a negative deceleration parameter q0 at more than five sigma. This produces the tightest supernova-only cosmological constraints achieved so far. Dark energy remains consistent with a cosmological constant to within roughly two sigma across wCDM and w0waCDM models, with systematic uncertainties subdominant to statistical ones.

Core claim

The full five-year DES supernova sample, classified via machine learning on light curves rather than spectra and anchored by host-galaxy redshifts, yields Omega_m = 0.352 plus or minus 0.017 in flat LambdaCDM when used by itself. Supernova data alone now require q0 less than zero at over five sigma , while returning competitive limits on the dark-energy equation of state that stay consistent with a cosmological constant within about two sigma in all tested models.

What carries the argument

Photometric classification of Type Ia supernovae via machine-learning light-curve algorithm in four bands, with per-supernova likelihood weighting and quality cuts, enabling a large high-redshift sample without full spectroscopic typing.

If this is right

  • Supernova data by themselves exclude a non-accelerating universe at high statistical significance.
  • Systematic errors remain smaller than statistical errors, opening the door to purely photometric cosmological analyses at larger scale.
  • Dark-energy equation-of-state parameters stay within two sigma of a cosmological constant even when the supernova sample is combined with CMB and BAO data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This result supports scaling photometric classification methods to future wide-field surveys that will have far fewer spectroscopic resources per object.
  • With larger samples the same framework could begin to constrain time-varying dark energy at higher precision than current supernova-only limits allow.
  • The demonstrated subdominance of systematics suggests that further gains will come mainly from increased sample size rather than from new calibration techniques.

Load-bearing premise

The machine-learning light-curve classifier separates true Type Ia supernovae from contaminants with negligible bias after the reported quality cuts and likelihood weighting.

What would settle it

A large fraction of the photometrically classified events turning out to be non-Ia supernovae upon spectroscopic follow-up, or a reanalysis restricted to only spectroscopically confirmed supernovae producing q0 consistent with zero.

read the original abstract

We present cosmological constraints from the sample of Type Ia supernovae (SN Ia) discovered during the full five years of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Supernova Program. In contrast to most previous cosmological samples, in which SN are classified based on their spectra, we classify the DES SNe using a machine learning algorithm applied to their light curves in four photometric bands. Spectroscopic redshifts are acquired from a dedicated follow-up survey of the host galaxies. After accounting for the likelihood of each SN being a SN Ia, we find 1635 DES SNe in the redshift range $0.10<z<1.13$ that pass quality selection criteria sufficient to constrain cosmological parameters. This quintuples the number of high-quality $z>0.5$ SNe compared to the previous leading compilation of Pantheon+, and results in the tightest cosmological constraints achieved by any SN data set to date. To derive cosmological constraints we combine the DES supernova data with a high-quality external low-redshift sample consisting of 194 SNe Ia spanning $0.025<z<0.10$. Using SN data alone and including systematic uncertainties we find $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.352\pm 0.017$ in flat $\Lambda$CDM. Supernova data alone now require acceleration ($q_0<0$ in $\Lambda$CDM) with over $5\sigma$ confidence. We find $(\Omega_{\rm M},w)=(0.264^{+0.074}_{-0.096},-0.80^{+0.14}_{-0.16})$ in flat $w$CDM. For flat $w_0w_a$CDM, we find $(\Omega_{\rm M},w_0,w_a)=(0.495^{+0.033}_{-0.043},-0.36^{+0.36}_{-0.30},-8.8^{+3.7}_{-4.5})$. Including Planck CMB data, SDSS BAO data, and DES $3\times2$-point data gives $(\Omega_{\rm M},w)=(0.321\pm0.007,-0.941\pm0.026)$. In all cases dark energy is consistent with a cosmological constant to within $\sim2\sigma$. In our analysis, systematic errors on cosmological parameters are subdominant compared to statistical errors; paving the way for future photometrically classified supernova analyses.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports cosmological constraints from a sample of 1635 photometrically classified Type Ia supernovae from the full five-year Dark Energy Survey (DES), spanning 0.10 < z < 1.13. Using a machine-learning light-curve classifier with likelihood weighting and combining with an external low-redshift anchor sample of 194 SNe, the authors derive Ω_M = 0.352 ± 0.017 in flat ΛCDM. This yields the claim that supernova data alone require cosmic acceleration (q_0 < 0) at >5σ significance. Additional results are given for flat wCDM and w0waCDM, with dark energy consistent with a cosmological constant to ~2σ when external probes are included; systematics are stated to be subdominant to statistical errors.

Significance. If the photometric classification proves unbiased after the reported cuts, this work provides the tightest supernova-only cosmological constraints to date and demonstrates that large photometrically classified samples can achieve precision cosmology. The quintupling of high-quality z > 0.5 SNe and the subdominance of systematics represent a significant technical advance that paves the way for future surveys relying on machine-learning classification.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and cosmological fitting section] The >5σ acceleration claim (q_0 < 0) rests directly on the quoted Ω_M = 0.352 ± 0.017 value and its uncertainty budget. A dedicated section or appendix should explicitly propagate the classification likelihood weights and any residual contamination bias into the final covariance matrix to confirm that the significance is not sensitive to plausible variations in the ML classifier performance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that systematics are subdominant but does not quantify the breakdown (e.g., by source); a short table summarizing the dominant systematic contributions would improve clarity.
  2. [Sample selection] Redshift range is given as 0.10 < z < 1.13; confirm whether boundary objects are included and whether the same cuts apply uniformly across the range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and recommendation to accept. We address the major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and cosmological fitting section] The >5σ acceleration claim (q_0 < 0) rests directly on the quoted Ω_M = 0.352 ± 0.017 value and its uncertainty budget. A dedicated section or appendix should explicitly propagate the classification likelihood weights and any residual contamination bias into the final covariance matrix to confirm that the significance is not sensitive to plausible variations in the ML classifier performance.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of robustness is valuable. The current analysis already incorporates the per-SN classification likelihood weights directly into the likelihood function and covariance matrix construction (see Section 4.3 and the associated systematic covariance terms). To address the referee's request, we have added a new Appendix C in the revised manuscript. This appendix (i) re-derives the full covariance matrix under variations of the machine-learning classifier probability threshold, (ii) quantifies any residual contamination bias by injecting simulated non-Ia events at the level allowed by the training data, and (iii) recomputes the q_0 significance. The >5σ result is unchanged across the tested range, confirming that the quoted uncertainty budget is conservative with respect to plausible classifier variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The cosmological parameters (Ω_M = 0.352 ± 0.017 in flat ΛCDM and q0 < 0 at >5σ) are obtained by standard likelihood fitting of the observed distance moduli from the photometrically classified DES supernova sample plus an external low-redshift anchor. The ML light-curve classifier operates on photometric data independently of the cosmological model, and no equation or self-citation reduces the reported acceleration significance or parameter values to quantities defined by the same fit. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or ansatz-smuggling steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the standard assumption that Type Ia supernovae are standard candles whose luminosity can be standardized from light-curve shape and color, plus the usual flat-universe and Friedmann-equation framework.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernovae have standardized peak luminosity after light-curve corrections
    Required for distance measurements; invoked throughout the cosmological fitting section implied by the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6638 in / 1176 out tokens · 29552 ms · 2026-05-16T05:45:46.808357+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 20 Pith papers

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

  1. GI BAO as a cosmological consistency check

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    GI BAO provides a robust consistency check for density BAO and shear data, with the first photometric measurement on DES Y3 showing agreement at α = 0.966 ± 0.252.

  2. Analytic compression of the effective field theory of the Lyman-alpha forest

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Analytic compression of EFT parameters for Lyα forest P1D via Fisher matrix and linearization allows efficient marginalization, saturating constraints with linear bias plus five effective terms and forecasting 10% and...

  3. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

    DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.

  4. DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    astro-ph.CO 2024-04 accept novelty 7.0

    First-year DESI BAO data are consistent with flat LambdaCDM and, when combined with CMB, show a 2.5-3.9 sigma preference for evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) that strengthens with certain supernova datasets.

  5. Into the Gompverse: A robust Gompertzian reionization model for CMB analyses

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A Gompertzian reionization model with three nuisance parameters demotes optical depth to a derived quantity, reducing its uncertainty by a factor of three and revealing potential neutrino mass tension in CMB analyses.

  6. Bounding axion dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An analytic bound on axion parameters in thawing quintessence is derived independently of initial conditions and used with cosmological observations plus quantum gravity constraints to exclude large regions of axion d...

  7. Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new quintessence model with non-minimal coupling produces an effective sign-switching interaction that fits current data better than LambdaCDM or w0waCDM and accounts for late-time dark energy weakening without phan...

  8. Beyond the Standard Model of Cosmology: Testing new paradigms with a Multiprobe Exploration of the Dark Universe

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Proposes primordial black holes from modified small-scale fluctuations and entropic acceleration in expanding spacetime as explanations for dark matter and dark energy.

  9. Model-Independent Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Datasets and Implications for Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Apparent dynamical dark energy signals from SNe Ia with DESI data are consistent with LambdaCDM when accounting for dataset-specific Omega_m inconsistencies rather than requiring evolving dark energy.

  10. Disentangling cosmic distance tensions with early and late dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Early dark energy resolves CMB-BAO tension and, combined with thawing quintessence, reduces overall cosmological tensions without phantom crossing.

  11. Measuring neutrino mass in light of ACT DR6 and DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    New ACT and DESI data yield model-dependent upper limits on sum of neutrino masses, with holographic dark energy giving the tightest bounds and a consistent preference for degenerate hierarchy.

  12. Revisiting the Matter Creation Process: Observational Constraints on Gravitationally Induced Dark Energy and the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    Gravitationally induced particle creation models fit cosmological data as well as ΛCDM and reduce the Hubble tension from 4.3σ to 2.4–3σ.

  13. Model-independent consistency tests of DESI DR2 BAO and SN Ia

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    DESI DR2 BAO and Pantheon+/Union3 SN Ia datasets are mutually consistent at 1-2 sigma using crossing statistics, supporting a reconstruction suggestive of evolving dark energy at low redshift.

  14. Coupled Dark Energy and Dark Matter for DESI: An Effective Guide to the Phantom Divide

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Coupled quintessence-dark matter models can produce an apparent phantom-crossing effective equation of state matching DESI preferences if the scalar field begins frozen in the radiation era.

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

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 accept novelty 4.0

    DESI-DR2 angular diameter distances and SNeIa luminosity distances are statistically consistent with the Etherington relation, yielding a constraint on SNeIa absolute magnitude evolution of dM/dz = 0.07 ± 0.07.

  16. Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 conditional novelty 4.0

    Extended analysis of DESI DR2 data confirms robust evidence for dynamical dark energy with phantom crossing preference, stable under parametric and non-parametric modeling.

  17. DESI DR2 Results I: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 4.0

    DESI DR2 delivers 0.65% precision BAO measurements from the LyA forest at z_eff=2.33, with D_H/r_d = 8.632 ± 0.098 ± 0.026 and D_M/r_d = 38.99 ± 0.52 ± 0.12.

  18. Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework

    astro-ph.CO 2023-11 conditional novelty 4.0

    Union3 compilation of 2087 SNe Ia with UNITY1.5 framework shows 1.7-2.6 sigma tension with LambdaCDM and possible thawing dark energy.

  19. No evidence for phantom crossing: local goodness-of-fit improvements do not persist under global Bayesian model comparison

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Local goodness-of-fit gains for w0wa and phantom crossing vanish under global Bayesian evidence, showing no statistically robust evidence for dynamical dark energy across datasets.

  20. Cosmological Dynamics of Exponential Quintessence Constrained by BAO, Cosmic Chronometers, and DES-SN5YR/Pantheon+ Data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Exponential quintessence model is fitted to BAO, cosmic chronometers, and DES-SN5YR/Pantheon+ data, yielding parameter bounds and diagnostics statistically comparable to LCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 113 canonical work pages · cited by 20 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617

    Alam, S., Ata, M., Bailey, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2617

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2021, PhRvD, 103, 083533

    Alam, S., Aubert, M., Avila, S., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 083533

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    & Lupton, R

    Alard, C. & Lupton, R. H. 1998, ApJ, 503, 325

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al

    Aleo, P. D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 9

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    2023, PASA, 40, e038 Astropy Collaboration

    Armstrong, P., Qu, H., Brout, D., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e038 Astropy Collaboration. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    E., Paviot, R., Vargas Maga˜ na, M., et al

    Bautista, J. E., Paviot, R., Vargas Maga˜ na, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 736

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    P., Kessler, R., Kuhlmann, S., et al

    Bernstein, J. P., Kessler, R., Kuhlmann, S., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 152

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    & Arnouts, S

    Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    work page 1996

  9. [9]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22

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

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    R., & Scolnic, D

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

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    & Scolnic, D

    Brout, D. & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 26

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    L., Rykoff, E

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

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Camilleri, R., Davis, T., & the DES Collaboration. in prep. 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    J., & Krauss, L

    Chaboyer, B., Demarque, P., Kernan, P. J., & Krauss, L. M. 1998, ApJ, 494, 96

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    Chen, R. et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 62

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 62

    Chen, R., Scolnic, D., Rozo, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 62

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    & Polarski, D

    Chevallier, M. & Polarski, D. 2001, IJMP D, 10, 213

    work page 2001

  19. [19]

    J., Lidman, C., Davis, T

    Childress, M. J., Lidman, C., Davis, T. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 273

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    & Moresco, M

    Cimatti, A. & Moresco, M. 2023, ApJ, 953, 149

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 1 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration

    Conley, A., Guy, J., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 1 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2019, ApJL, 872, L30 24 The Dark Energy Survey Collaboration Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023520 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 083504

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Abbott, M

    Dawson, K. S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 44 de Mattia, A., Ruhlmann-Kleider, V., Raichoor, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5616 DES Collaboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.06712 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001

    work page arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    T., Neilsen, E., Gruendl, R., et al

    Diehl, H. T., Neilsen, E., Gruendl, R., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9910, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VI, ed. A. B. Peck, R. L. Seaman, & C. R. Benn, 99101D

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    T., Neilsen, E., Gruendl, R

    Diehl, H. T., Neilsen, E., Gruendl, R. A., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10704, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VII, 107040D

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Dixon, M. et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4291 du Mas des Bourboux, H., Rich, J., Font-Ribera, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 153

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.14291

    Duarte, J., Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, S., Mourao, A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.14291

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    & Rocca-Volmerange, B

    Fioc, M. & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1999, arXiv e-prints, astro

    work page 1999

  28. [28]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

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

    Foley, R. J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 475, 193

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

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

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., & Filippenko, A. V. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2240

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    L., Nugent, P

    Gilliland, R. L., Nugent, P. E., & Phillips, M. M. 1999, ApJ, 521, 30

    work page 1999

  33. [33]

    G., Pecci, F

    Gratton, R. G., Pecci, F. F., Carretta, E., et al. 1997, ApJ, 491, 749

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    R., Kuhlmann, S., Kovacs, E., et al

    Gupta, R. R., Kuhlmann, S., Kovacs, E., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 154

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1414

    Handley, W. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1414

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    & Lemos, P

    Handley, W. & Lemos, P. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 023512

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    J., Hobson, M

    Handley, W. J., Hobson, M. P., & Lasenby, A. N. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L61

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 331

    Hicken, M., Challis, P., Jha, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 331

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    P., et al

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

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    & Brout, D

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

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Hinton, S. R. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 00045

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    2012, ApJ, 752, 79

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

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    G., Ross, A

    Hou, J., S´ anchez, A. G., Ross, A. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1201

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    & Roos, M

    James, F. & Roos, M. 1975, Comput. Phys. Commun., 10, 343

    work page 1975

  47. [47]

    A new approach for obtaining cosmological constraints from Type Ia Supernovae using Approximate Bayesian Computation

    Jennings, E., Wolf, R., & Sako, M. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.03087

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    O., Scolnic, D

    Jones, D. O., Scolnic, D. M., Riess, A. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 51

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    O., Scolnic, D

    Jones, D. O., Scolnic, D. M., Foley, R. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 19

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    O., Foley, R

    Jones, D. O., Foley, R. J., Narayan, G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 143

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 3046

    Kelsey, L., Sullivan, M., Wiseman, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3046

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    D., Jones, D

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

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    & Scolnic, D

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

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    2023, ApJL, 952, L8

    Kessler, R., Vincenzi, M., & Armstrong, P. 2023, ApJL, 952, L8

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    P., Cinabro, D., et al

    Kessler, R., Bernstein, J. P., Cinabro, D., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1028–1035

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    2015, AJ, 150, 172

    Kessler, R., Marriner, J., Childress, M., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 172

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    R., et al

    Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 330

    work page 2009

  58. [58]

    R., et al

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

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    A., & Hlozek, R

    Kunz, M., Bassett, B. A., & Hlozek, R. A. 2007, Physical Review D, 75

    work page 2007

  60. [60]

    A., et al

    Kunz, M., Hlozek, R., Bassett, B. A., et al. 2012, Astrostatistical Challenges for the New Astronomy, 63–86

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    2020, The Dark Energy Survey (Europe: World Scientific), https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/q0247 The Dark Energy Survey: supernova cosmology results 25

    Lahav, O., Calder, L., Mayers, J., & Frieman, J. 2020, The Dark Energy Survey (Europe: World Scientific), https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/q0247 The Dark Energy Survey: supernova cosmology results 25

    work page doi:10.1142/q0247 2020

  62. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5329

    Lasker, J., Kessler, R., Scolnic, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5329

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    2023, AJ, 165, 222

    Lee, J., Acevedo, M., Sako, M., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 222

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 6179

    Lemos, P., Raveri, M., Campos, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 6179

    work page 2021

  65. [65]

    E., Davis, T

    Lidman, C., Tucker, B. E., Davis, T. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 19

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Linder, E. V. 2003, PhRvL, 90, 091301

    work page 2003

  67. [67]

    P., Kessler, R., et al

    Marriner, J., Bernstein, J. P., Kessler, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 72

    work page 2011

  68. [68]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1985

    Meldorf, C., Palmese, A., Brout, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1985

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 212 M¨ oller, A

    Mitra, A., Kessler, R., More, S., Hlozek, R., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2023, ApJ, 944, 212 M¨ oller, A. & de Boissi` ere, T. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4277 M¨ oller, A., Smith, M., Sako, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5159 M¨ oller, A. & the DES Collaboration. in prep. 2024 Pandas development team. 2020, Zenodo: pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (https://d...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134 2023

  70. [70]

    1999, ApJ, 517, 565

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

    work page 1999

  71. [71]

    M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N

    Phillips, M. M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 1766 Planck Collaboration. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 1999

  72. [72]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 49

    Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., Scolnic, D., & Lu, L. 2021, ApJ, 913, 49

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.05654

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

    work page arXiv

  74. [74]

    & Dunkley, J

    Prince, H. & Dunkley, J. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 083502

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    Pskovskii, I. P. 1977, Soviet Ast., 21, 675

    work page 1977

  76. [76]

    2021, AJ, 162, 67

    Qu, H., Sako, M., M¨ oller, A., & Doux, C. 2021, AJ, 162, 67

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.13696

    Qu, H., Sako, M., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.13696

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    G., Filippenko, A

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

    work page 1998

  79. [79]

    G., Nugent, P

    Riess, A. G., Nugent, P. E., Gilliland, R. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, 49

    work page 2001

  80. [80]

    G., Strolger, L.-G., Tonry, J., et al

    Riess, A. G., Strolger, L.-G., Tonry, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 665

    work page 2004

Showing first 80 references.