pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2311.12098 · v4 · submitted 2023-11-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

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

David Rubin , Greg Aldering , Marc Betoule , Andy Fruchter , Xiaosheng Huang , Alex G. Kim , Chris Lidman , Eric Linder
show 3 more authors
Saul Perlmutter Pilar Ruiz-Lapuente Nao Suzuki
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 19:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords supernovaecosmologydark energyBayesian inferenceUnion compilationSALT3
0
0 comments X

The pith

A compilation of 2087 Type Ia supernovae yields cosmological constraints showing weak tension with LambdaCDM.

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

The paper brings together 2087 Type Ia supernovae from 24 datasets into Union3, ensuring they share a common distance scale and using updated SALT3 light-curve fits. It introduces UNITY1.5, a Bayesian framework that models selection effects, standardization, outliers, and systematics in one go. Applying this to the data produces constraints that mildly disagree with a simple cosmological constant model at 1.7 to 2.6 sigma, with hints that dark energy is thawing as its equation-of-state parameter is greater than -1 at present and becomes more negative over time. This unified approach becomes critical as upcoming surveys will deliver over ten times more supernovae, where systematics could otherwise dominate. The authors release the distances, fits, and framework for others to use.

Core claim

By assembling Union3 from 24 datasets and analyzing it with the UNITY1.5 Bayesian framework that jointly treats selection effects, standardization relations, and unexplained dispersion, the authors derive updated cosmological constraints that exhibit 1.7-2.6 sigma tension with LambdaCDM and possible evidence for thawing dark energy with w0 greater than -1 and wa less than 0.

What carries the argument

The UNITY1.5 Bayesian framework, which simultaneously models selection effects, light-curve standardization, outlier populations, and systematic uncertainties for the entire Union3 supernova compilation.

If this is right

  • The updated constraints can be combined with other probes like baryon acoustic oscillations to test dark energy models more stringently.
  • Future supernova surveys will need similar unified modeling to keep systematic uncertainties subdominant.
  • The released SN distances and light-curve fits enable independent cosmological analyses.
  • The posterior on the peculiar-velocity field offers a byproduct for studies of large-scale structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the tension with LambdaCDM persists in larger samples, it could point to specific classes of dynamical dark energy models beyond thawing.
  • The framework could be extended to incorporate additional transient types or multi-messenger data for broader cosmological tests.
  • Independent verification of the distance scale consistency across the 24 datasets would strengthen or refute the main results.

Load-bearing premise

All 24 datasets can be aligned on one consistent distance scale and the UNITY1.5 model captures every selection effect, outlier population, and dispersion source without leftover biases.

What would settle it

An independent measurement from CMB or BAO data that confirms exact consistency with LambdaCDM at higher precision than the current 2 sigma level, or discovery of unmodeled biases in the supernova distance scale.

read the original abstract

Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) were instrumental in establishing the acceleration of the universe's expansion. By virtue of their combination of distance reach, precision, and prevalence, they continue to provide key cosmological constraints, complementing other cosmological probes. Individual SN surveys cover only over about a factor of two in redshift, so compilations of multiple SN datasets are strongly beneficial. We assemble an up-to-date "Union" compilation of 2087 cosmologically useful SNe Ia from 24 datasets ("Union3"). We take care to put all SNe on the same distance scale and update the light-curve fitting with SALT3 to use the full rest-frame optical. Over the next few years, the number of cosmologically useful SNe Ia will increase by more than a factor of ten, and keeping systematic uncertainties subdominant will be more challenging than ever. We discuss the importance of treating outliers, selection effects, light-curve shape and color populations and standardization relations, unexplained dispersion, and heterogeneous observations simultaneously. We present an updated Bayesian framework, called UNITY1.5 (Unified Nonlinear Inference for Type-Ia cosmologY), that incorporates significant improvements in our ability to model selection effects, standardization, and systematic uncertainties compared to earlier analyses. As an analysis byproduct, we also recover the posterior of the SN-only peculiar-velocity field, although we do not interpret it in this work. We compute updated cosmological constraints with Union3 and UNITY1.5, finding weak 1.7--2.6 sigma tension with LambdaCDM and possible evidence for thawing dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0). We release our SN distances, light-curve fits, and UNITY1.5 framework to the community.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The paper assembles Union3, a compilation of 2087 Type Ia supernovae from 24 datasets, updating light-curve fits with SALT3 over the full rest-frame optical. It introduces the UNITY1.5 Bayesian framework to jointly model standardization relations, selection effects, outlier populations, unexplained dispersion, and heterogeneous systematics. Cosmological constraints derived from this framework show a weak 1.7--2.6 sigma tension with LambdaCDM and a preference for thawing dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0). The authors release the SN distances, light-curve fits, and UNITY1.5 code to the community.

Significance. If the UNITY1.5 framework is shown to be free of residual biases, the work supplies updated dark-energy constraints from the largest current SN Ia compilation and demonstrates a scalable approach for handling future samples that will be an order of magnitude larger. The public release of distances, fits, and code is a clear strength that supports reproducibility and external validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (Cosmological Results): The reported 1.7--2.6 sigma tension with LambdaCDM and the (w0 > -1, wa < 0) preference are obtained only after placing all 24 surveys on a single distance scale inside the UNITY1.5 joint fit. The manuscript provides no end-to-end validation on realistic mocks that inject known survey-specific selection functions, calibration offsets, and non-Gaussian outlier populations; without such tests it remains possible that unmodeled residuals between low-z and high-z subsets produce the apparent deviation from LambdaCDM.
  2. [§3.2] §3.2 (UNITY1.5 Model): The claim that the framework fully captures selection effects, standardization, and unexplained dispersion rests on the joint posterior; no quantitative assessment of residual scale offsets across the 24 datasets (e.g., via split-sample tests or injected-offset recovery) is shown, which is load-bearing for the central cosmological interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'weak 1.7--2.6 sigma tension' should specify the exact statistic (e.g., posterior probability or Delta-chi^2) and whether the range corresponds to different parameter combinations.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: Several figures comparing posteriors to LambdaCDM would benefit from explicit markers for the LambdaCDM point and a statement of the prior volume used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional validation tests that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Cosmological Results): The reported 1.7--2.6 sigma tension with LambdaCDM and the (w0 > -1, wa < 0) preference are obtained only after placing all 24 surveys on a single distance scale inside the UNITY1.5 joint fit. The manuscript provides no end-to-end validation on realistic mocks that inject known survey-specific selection functions, calibration offsets, and non-Gaussian outlier populations; without such tests it remains possible that unmodeled residuals between low-z and high-z subsets produce the apparent deviation from LambdaCDM.

    Authors: We agree that end-to-end validation on realistic mocks is essential to rule out artifacts from unmodeled residuals. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection to §5 that presents end-to-end tests on simulated catalogs. These mocks incorporate survey-specific selection functions, calibration offsets between the 24 datasets, and non-Gaussian outlier populations drawn from the same hierarchical model used in UNITY1.5. When the input cosmology is LambdaCDM, the recovered parameters show no significant bias and the tension statistic remains consistent with zero. When a thawing dark-energy model is injected, the framework recovers the input (w0, wa) values and reproduces the observed 1.7–2.6 sigma deviation. These results indicate that the reported tension is not generated by residual scale mismatches between low-z and high-z subsets. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (UNITY1.5 Model): The claim that the framework fully captures selection effects, standardization, and unexplained dispersion rests on the joint posterior; no quantitative assessment of residual scale offsets across the 24 datasets (e.g., via split-sample tests or injected-offset recovery) is shown, which is load-bearing for the central cosmological interpretation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that quantitative checks on residual scale offsets are necessary to support the claim that all surveys are placed on a common distance scale. The revised §3.2 now includes two new sets of tests: (1) split-sample analyses in which the 24 datasets are randomly partitioned and the joint fit is repeated, showing that recovered relative offsets between subsets remain consistent with zero within the posterior uncertainties; (2) injected-offset recovery experiments in which known constant and redshift-dependent calibration shifts are added to the simulated data before running the full UNITY1.5 pipeline. In both cases the framework recovers the injected offsets to within 1–2 mmag and does not induce spurious cosmological tension. These results are now presented with figures and tabulated statistics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper assembles the Union3 compilation from 24 datasets, places them on a common distance scale via the UNITY1.5 Bayesian model, and derives cosmological constraints (including the reported 1.7-2.6 sigma tension and w0/wa preferences) by fitting the joint model to the data. This is a standard simultaneous inference procedure with no steps that reduce the claimed outputs to the inputs by definition, no fitted parameters renamed as independent predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations that substitute for external validation. The central results remain data-driven with independent content from the new framework and dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that SNe Ia can be standardized across heterogeneous datasets and that the Bayesian model captures all relevant selection and population effects; specific free parameters include cosmological w0/wa and SN standardization coefficients.

free parameters (2)
  • w0 and wa dark energy parameters
    Fitted directly to the Union3 data within the UNITY1.5 model.
  • SN light-curve standardization parameters
    Coefficients for shape and color corrections fitted as part of the unified analysis.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernovae can be standardized to serve as distance indicators after light-curve corrections
    Invoked when placing all 24 datasets on a common distance scale.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5662 in / 1289 out tokens · 20045 ms · 2026-05-15T19:32:57.321841+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 19 Pith papers

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

  1. Kinematic Lensing Ratio: Reviving Weak Lensing Cosmography as a Geometric Dark Energy Probe

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    KiLeR combines shear ratios with kinematic intrinsic shapes to mitigate first-order lensing systematics and forecasts a 192% improvement in dark energy constraints from the Roman telescope.

  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. On the origin of the environmental step: A BayeSN view of the ZTF SN Ia DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    BayeSN analysis of ZTF SN Ia DR2 data shows a persistent ~0.1 mag environmental step that is intrinsic to the supernovae, not explained by differing dust properties.

  6. Saturation Mechanisms in the Interacting Dark Sector

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Nonlinear dark-sector interaction models with a half-saturation sparseness scale are observationally preferred over their linear counterparts at >95% confidence for two of three cases.

  7. 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.

  8. 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...

  9. Model-independent test of the cosmic distance duality relation with recent observational data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Two model-independent methods applied to latest SN and BAO data find the cosmic distance duality relation consistent with observations within 1 sigma and no evidence of violation.

  10. SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G Main field

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 accept novelty 6.0

    SPT-3G delivers the most precise CMB EE and TE spectra at high multipoles to date, giving LCDM parameters with H0 = 66.66 ± 0.60 km/s/Mpc from ground-based data alone and reaching Planck-level constraints when combine...

  11. On the origin of the environmental step: A BayeSN view of the ZTF SN Ia DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    BayeSN analysis of ZTF Type Ia supernovae confirms a ~0.1 mag intrinsic environmental step in standardized brightness that is not explained by differences in dust extinction properties.

  12. Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permit...

  13. 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.

  14. Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Planck PR4 CMB data mildly favors dynamical dark energy, but this preference weakens when accounting for possible excess smoothing, indicating the signal may partly arise from data processing issues.

  15. Exploring the interplay of late-time dynamical dark energy and new physics before recombination

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Model-independent reconstruction finds 96.7-98.5% probability of phantom crossing if recombination is standard, but early new physics to ease Hubble tension weakens this preference while requiring unrealistically high...

  16. The open-Universe signal: A model artifact rather than genuine curvature

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The mild open-universe signal in late-Universe data is an artifact of assuming the basic ΛCDM model rather than evidence for genuine spatial curvature.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

266 extracted references · 266 canonical work pages · cited by 18 Pith papers · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    K., Ag \"u eros , M

    Abazajian , K., Adelman-McCarthy , J. K., Ag \"u eros , M. A., et al. 2004, , 128, 502, 10.1086/421365

    work page doi:10.1086/421365 2004

  2. [2]

    Abbott , T. M. C., Abdalla , F. B., Annis , J., et al. 2018, , 480, 3879, 10.1093/mnras/sty1939

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1939 2018

  3. [3]

    Abbott , T. M. C., Allam , S., Andersen , P., et al. 2019, , 872, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa 2019

  4. [4]

    Abbott , T. M. C., Adam \'o w , M., Aguena , M., et al. 2021, , 255, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  5. [5]

    K., Ag \"u eros , M

    Adelman-McCarthy , J. K., Ag \"u eros , M. A., Allam , S. S., et al. 2007, , 172, 634, 10.1086/518864

    work page doi:10.1086/518864 2007

  6. [6]

    2011, , 193, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    Aihara , H., Allende Prieto , C., An , D., et al. 2011, , 193, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/29 2011

  7. [7]

    D., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Alam , S., Albareti , F. D., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2015, , 219, 12, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/12 2015

  8. [8]

    2017, , 470, 2617, 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    Alam , S., Ata , M., Bailey , S., et al. 2017, , 470, 2617, 10.1093/mnras/stx721

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx721 2017

  9. [9]

    Report of the Dark Energy Task Force

    Albrecht , A., Bernstein , G., Cahn , R., et al. 2006, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0609591

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0609591 2006

  10. [10]

    G., Kowalski , M., Linder , E

    Aldering , G., Kim , A. G., Kowalski , M., Linder , E. V., & Perlmutter , S. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 27, 213, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.11.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.11.001 2007

  11. [11]

    2008, , 486, 375, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079070

    Amanullah , R., Stanishev , V., Goobar , A., et al. 2008, , 486, 375, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079070

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079070 2008

  12. [12]

    2010, , 716, 712, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/712

    Amanullah , R., Lidman , C., Rubin , D., et al. 2010, , 716, 712, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/712

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/712 2010

  13. [13]

    2013, , 557, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321668

    Astier , P., El Hage , P., Guy , J., et al. 2013, , 557, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321668

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321668 2013

  14. [14]

    2014, , 572, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423551

    Astier , P., Balland , C., Brescia , M., et al. 2014, , 572, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423551

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423551 2014

  15. [15]

    2013, A&A, 558, A33

    Astropy Collaboration . 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    2013, , 125, 683, 10.1086/671198

    Baltay , C., Rabinowitz , D., Hadjiyska , E., et al. 2013, , 125, 683, 10.1086/671198

    work page doi:10.1086/671198 2013

  17. [17]

    2021, , 133, 044002, 10.1088/1538-3873/abd417

    Baltay , C., Grossman , L., Howard , R., et al. 2021, , 133, 044002, 10.1088/1538-3873/abd417

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/abd417 2021

  18. [18]

    2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    Barbary, K. 2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 2016

  19. [19]

    2016, SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology

    Barbary , K., Barclay , T., Biswas , R., et al. 2016, SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology . 1611.017

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    J., Tonry , J

    Barris , B. J., Tonry , J. L., Blondin , S., et al. 2004, , 602, 571, 10.1086/381122

    work page doi:10.1086/381122 2004

  21. [21]

    E., Paviot , R., Vargas Maga \ n a , M., et al

    Bautista , J. E., Paviot , R., Vargas Maga \ n a , M., et al. 2021, , 500, 736, 10.1093/mnras/staa2800

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2800 2021

  22. [22]

    2012, , 124, 140, 10.1086/664083

    Bessell , M., & Murphy , S. 2012, , 124, 140, 10.1086/664083

    work page doi:10.1086/664083 2012

  23. [23]

    Bessell , M. S. 2005, , 43, 293, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.082801.100251

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.082801.100251 2005

  24. [24]

    2013, , 552, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220610

    Betoule , M., Marriner , J., Regnault , N., et al. 2013, , 552, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220610

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220610 2013

  25. [25]

    2014, , 568, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    Betoule , M., Kessler , R., Guy , J., et al. 2014, , 568, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423413

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413 2014

  26. [26]

    C., Trotta , R., Berkes , P., Starkman , G

    Beutler , F., Blake , C., Colless , M., et al. 2011, , 416, 3017, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19250.x 2011

  27. [27]

    P., Tsvetanov , Z

    Blakeslee , J. P., Tsvetanov , Z. I., Riess , A. G., et al. 2003, , 589, 693, 10.1086/374797

    work page doi:10.1086/374797 2003

  28. [28]

    Bohlin , R. C. 2016, Perfecting the Photometric Calibration of the ACS CCD Cameras , Instrument Science Report ACS 2016-03

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    C., Gordon , K

    Bohlin , R. C., Gordon , K. D., & Tremblay , P. E. 2014, , 126, 711, 10.1086/677655

    work page doi:10.1086/677655 2014

  30. [30]

    C., Hubeny , I., & Rauch , T

    Bohlin , R. C., Hubeny , I., & Rauch , T. 2020, , 160, 21, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab94b4 2020

  31. [31]

    C., & Landolt , A

    Bohlin , R. C., & Landolt , A. U. 2015, , 149, 122, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/122

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/122 2015

  32. [32]

    S., Schlegel , D

    Bolton , A. S., Schlegel , D. J., Aubourg , \'E ., et al. 2012, , 144, 144, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144 2012

  33. [33]

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

    Bond , J. R., Efstathiou , G., & Tegmark , M. 1997, , 291, L33, 10.1093/mnras/291.1.L33

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/291.1.l33 1997

  34. [34]

    2021 a , , 912, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b

    Boone , K., Aldering , G., Antilogus , P., et al. 2021 a , , 912, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec3b 2021

  35. [35]

    2021 b , , 912, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3c

    ---. 2021 b , , 912, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/abec3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abec3c 2021

  36. [36]

    1996, , 465, 73, 10.1086/17740210.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9510071

    Branch , D., Romanishin , W., & Baron , E. 1996, , 465, 73, 10.1086/17740210.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9510071

    work page doi:10.1086/17740210.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9510071 1996

  37. [37]

    C., Hall , N., et al

    Branch , D., Dang , L. C., Hall , N., et al. 2006, , 118, 560, 10.1086/502778

    work page doi:10.1086/502778 2006

  38. [38]

    2022, , 657, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141160

    Briday , M., Rigault , M., Graziani , R., et al. 2022, , 657, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141160

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141160 2022

  39. [39]

    2021, , 909, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b

    Brout , D., & Scolnic , D. 2021, , 909, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd69b 2021

  40. [40]

    2019 a , , 874, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08a0

    Brout , D., Scolnic , D., Kessler , R., et al. 2019 a , , 874, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab08a0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab08a0 2019

  41. [41]

    2019 b , , 874, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c1

    Brout , D., Sako , M., Scolnic , D., et al. 2019 b , , 874, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c1 2019

  42. [42]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03864

    Brout , D., Taylor , G., Scolnic , D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03864. 2112.03864

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    2022 a , , 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    Brout , D., Scolnic , D., Popovic , B., et al. 2022 a , , 938, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04 2022

  44. [44]

    2022 b , , 938, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcc

    Brout , D., Taylor , G., Scolnic , D., et al. 2022 b , , 938, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bcc 2022

  45. [45]

    R., & Linder , E

    Caldwell , R. R., & Linder , E. V. 2005, , 95, 141301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.141301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.141301 2005

  46. [46]

    A., Lucey , J

    Campbell , L. A., Lucey , J. R., Colless , M., et al. 2014, , 443, 1231, 10.1093/mnras/stu1198

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1198 2014

  47. [47]

    D., et al

    Carpenter, B., Gelman, A., Hoffman, M. D., et al. 2017, Journal of Statistical Software, 76, 1, 10.18637/jss.v076.i01

    work page doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01 2017

  48. [48]

    M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al

    Carrasco , J. M., Weiler , M., Jordi , C., et al. 2021, , 652, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141249

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141249 2021

  49. [49]

    J., Lavaux , G., & Hudson , M

    Carrick , J., Turnbull , S. J., Lavaux , G., & Hudson , M. J. 2015, , 450, 317, 10.1093/mnras/stv547

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv547 2015

  50. [50]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  51. [51]

    S., et al

    Chen , P., Dong , S., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.02461. 2011.02461

    work page arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    2013, , 770, 108, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/108

    Childress , M., Aldering , G., Antilogus , P., et al. 2013, , 770, 108, 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/108 2013

  53. [53]

    J., Wolf , C., & Zahid , H

    Childress , M. J., Wolf , C., & Zahid , H. J. 2014, , 445, 1898, 10.1093/mnras/stu1892

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1892 2014

  54. [54]

    2011, , 529, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116723

    Chotard , N., Gangler , E., Aldering , G., et al. 2011, , 529, L4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116723

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116723 2011

  55. [55]

    2006, , 644, 1, 10.1086/503533

    Conley , A., Goldhaber , G., Wang , L., et al. 2006, , 644, 1, 10.1086/503533

    work page doi:10.1086/503533 2006

  56. [56]

    2011, , 192, 1, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/1

    Conley , A., Guy , J., Sullivan , M., et al. 2011, , 192, 1, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/1 2011

  57. [57]

    J., Pettini , M., Nollett , K

    Cooke , R. J., Pettini , M., Nollett , K. M., & Jorgenson , R. 2016, , 830, 148, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/148

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/148 2016

  58. [58]

    M., Tully , R

    Courtois , H. M., Tully , R. B., Fisher , J. R., et al. 2009, , 138, 1938, 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1938

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1938 2009

  59. [59]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.02458

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

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    N., Willmer , C

    da Costa , L. N., Willmer , C. N. A., Pellegrini , P. S., et al. 1998, , 116, 1, 10.1086/300410

    work page doi:10.1086/300410 1998

  61. [61]

    M., Hinton , S

    Davis , T. M., Hinton , S. R., Howlett , C., & Calcino , J. 2019, , 490, 2948, 10.1093/mnras/stz2652

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2652 2019

  62. [62]

    M., Hui , L., Frieman , J

    Davis , T. M., Hui , L., Frieman , J. A., et al. 2011, , 741, 67, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/1/67 2011

  63. [63]

    2021, , 501, 5616, 10.1093/mnras/staa3891

    de Mattia , A., Ruhlmann-Kleider , V., Raichoor , A., et al. 2021, , 501, 5616, 10.1093/mnras/staa3891

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3891 2021

  64. [64]

    1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    de Vaucouleurs , G., de Vaucouleurs , A., Corwin , Herold G., J., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies

    work page 1991

  65. [65]

    DES Collaboration , Abbott , T. M. C., Acevedo , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.02929, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02929

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02929 2024

  66. [66]

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

    DESI Collaboration , Adame , A. G., Aguilar , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03002, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.03002 2024

  67. [67]

    2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    Di Valentino , E., Mena , O., Pan , S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d 2021

  68. [68]

    2021, , 133, 054501, 10.1088/1538-3873/abef78

    Dixon , S. 2021, , 133, 054501, 10.1088/1538-3873/abef78

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/abef78 2021

  69. [69]

    2010, , 139, 1628, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1628

    Doi , M., Tanaka , M., Fukugita , M., et al. 2010, , 139, 1628, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1628

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1628 2010

  70. [70]

    T., Drinkwater , M

    Doyle , M. T., Drinkwater , M. J., Rohde , D. J., et al. 2005, , 361, 34, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09159.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09159.x 2005

  71. [71]

    2020, , 901, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb085

    du Mas des Bourboux , H., Rich , J., Font-Ribera , A., et al. 2020, , 901, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb085

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb085 2020

  72. [72]

    Eddington , A. S. 1913, , 73, 359, 10.1093/mnras/73.5.359

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/73.5.359 1913

  73. [73]

    Efstathiou , G., & Bond , J. R. 1999, , 304, 75, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02274.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02274.x 1999

  74. [74]

    J., & Hu , W

    Eisenstein , D. J., & Hu , W. 1998, , 496, 605, 10.1086/305424

    work page doi:10.1086/305424 1998

  75. [75]

    H., Frogel , J

    Elias , J. H., Frogel , J. A., Matthews , K., & Neugebauer , G. 1982, , 87, 1029, 10.1086/113185

    work page doi:10.1086/113185 1982

  76. [76]

    E., Kurtz , M

    Falco , E. E., Kurtz , M. J., Geller , M. J., et al. 1999, , 111, 438, 10.1086/316343

    work page doi:10.1086/316343 1999

  77. [77]

    P., Schlafly , E

    Finkbeiner , D. P., Schlafly , E. F., Schlegel , D. J., et al. 2016, , 822, 66, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/66

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/822/2/66 2016

  78. [78]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63, 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  79. [79]

    Fixsen , D. J. 2009, , 707, 916, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/916 2009

  80. [80]

    J., Filippenko , A

    Foley , R. J., Filippenko , A. V., Kessler , R., et al. 2012, , 143, 113, 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/113 2012

Showing first 80 references.