Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Critical Reanalysis of Supernova Type Ia Data

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Pantheon supernova residuals are better fit by a Logistic distribution than a Gaussian, and switching likelihoods moves the inferred Hubble constant to about 73 km/s/Mpc with wider error bars.

desk verdict The Logistic-likelihood claim is real but rides on a diagonal-only covariance that could easily produce the heavy tails; the abstract also misstates the model comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02204 v2 pith:HRG5XLSH submitted 2025-01-04 astro-ph.CO

Ramanpreet Singh , Athul C N , H.K. Jassal This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords TypeIasupernovaePantheondatasetdistancemodulusresidualsLogisticlikelihoodGaussianHubbletensionMarkovChainMonteCarlodarkenergyequationofstate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper re-examines the Pantheon compilation of 1048 Type Ia supernovae and argues that the standardized distance-modulus residuals are not Gaussian: a Logistic distribution fits them better, as judged by information criteria and distribution tests. Switching from a Gaussian to a Logistic likelihood in the parameter fit raises the inferred Hubble constant for a flat $\Lambda$CDM model from about 70.2 to 73.0 km/s/Mpc, with roughly three times larger uncertainty. The same broadening of contours occurs for every dark-energy parameterisation considered, and the paper reads this as a statistical route to softening the Hubble tension at the cost of precision. The paper also finds that the Logistic preference comes from the low-redshift part of the data, that higher-redshift bins prefer lower $H_0$, and that the constituent surveys of Pantheon are mutually inconsistent under the Logistic assumption.

What carries the argument

The central object is the standardized residual $X_i = (\mu_i^{\mathrm{obs}} - \mu_i^{\mathrm{th}})/\sigma_{\mu,i}$, treated as a random variable. The paper replaces the usual product-of-Gaussians likelihood with a Logistic likelihood, whose density is proportional to $\operatorname{sech}^2$ of the scaled residual. Because the Logistic density has heavier tails, it down-weights the influence of the bulk and lets a few outliers pull the fit less, which is what broadens the inferred parameter contours. The machinery also includes MCMC sampling with convergence checks to map the likelihood into parameter posteriors, and AIC/BIC/KS statistics to decide which likelihood the residuals actually follow.

What would settle it

Repeat the Gaussian-versus-Logistic likelihood comparison on the Pantheon data using the full covariance matrix including off-diagonal terms; if the Logistic likelihood is no longer preferred, or the $H_0$ shift vanishes, the paper's central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the common assumption of Gaussian errors in the Pantheon distance moduli is measurably wrong, and that the correct likelihood for the standardized residuals is Logistic rather than Gaussian. With a Logistic likelihood, MCMC fits to the full Pantheon dataset yield $H_0 = 73.04 \pm 0.74$ km/s/Mpc and $\Omega_{m0} = 0.31 \pm 0.01$ for $\Lambda$CDM, compared with $H_0 = 70.157 \pm 0.220$ km/s/Mpc and $\Omega_{m0} = 0.291 \pm 0.013$ under a Gaussian likelihood; contours in the $H_0$--$\Omega_m$ plane are visibly broader. The pattern repeats across the constant-$w$ and dynamical dark-energy parameterisations, and the paper argues that the extra uncertainty can reduce the statistical significance of the Hubble tension. Goodness-of-fit tests (AIC, BIC, KS) prefer the Logistic likelihood for the full sample and for low-redshift bins, while high-redshift bins do not distinguish the two distributions. Analysing the individual surveys within the Pantheon set separately, the paper finds that under the Logistic likelihood the SDSS subset deviates from the full Pantheon set by about $4\sigma$, whereas the Gaussian likelihood keeps the subsets consistent; this is interpreted as a sign that the survey cross-calibration pipeline implicitly assumes Gaussianity.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis uses only the diagonal entries of the Pantheon covariance matrix, treating the distance-modulus residuals as independent, which neglects the off-diagonal systematic covariances between supernovae.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the Logistic likelihood, the full Pantheon sample yields $H_0 = 73.04 \pm 0.74$ km/s/Mpc for flat $\Lambda$CDM, shifting roughly 3 km/s/Mpc above the Gaussian-likelihood value and tripling the quoted uncertainty.
  • Broader contours from the Logistic likelihood reduce the formal significance of the Hubble tension, though the central value moves toward late-time distance-ladder measurements.
  • Low-redshift bins drive the preference for Logistic errors; high-redshift bins are fit about equally well by Gaussian and Logistic likelihoods.
  • The survey-by-survey analysis shows that the SDSS subset disagrees with the full Pantheon sample at about $4\sigma$ under the Logistic likelihood, implying internal inconsistency that the Gaussian assumption hides.
  • Small perturbations of the distance modulus produce sizable shifts in the recovered $H_0$, so calibration systematics can mimic or mask cosmological parameter shifts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Logistic result survives the inclusion of off-diagonal covariance terms, then published Gaussian-based supernova contours are systematically overconfident, and the Hubble tension may be partly a statement about the wrong error model rather than new physics.
  • A direct test would re-run the same comparison on Pantheon+ with the full covariance matrix and with the blue-supernova subsample; the prediction is that the Logistic preference weakens or disappears if the non-Gaussianity is dominated by unmodelled systematics rather than intrinsic scatter.
  • The redshift dependence of the Logistic preference suggests that peculiar-velocity or dust-extinction systematics at low redshift are the likely source; including peculiar-velocity corrections or using only $c < -0.1$ supernovae could isolate the mechanism.
  • Because the surveys disagree under Logistic but agree under Gaussian, the cross-calibration procedure itself may be the origin of the apparent Gaussianity; a likelihood-ratio test on the calibration parameters could expose which step forces Gaussian residuals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-examines the Pantheon Type Ia supernova dataset and compares Gaussian and Logistic likelihoods for the distribution of distance-modulus residuals. Using MCMC parameter fits with fixed absolute magnitude and a diagonal-only covariance matrix, the authors find that the Logistic likelihood is preferred for the full dataset and for lower-redshift bins, and that switching to the Logistic likelihood shifts H0 from about 70.2 to 73.0 km/s/Mpc with larger uncertainties for the ΛCDM model, which they interpret as easing the Hubble tension. The paper also analyzes redshift-binned subsamples and the constituent SDSS, SNLS, and PS1 surveys, reporting survey inconsistencies under the Logistic likelihood and a stated preference for non-dynamical dark energy models.

Significance. If the central claims were robust, the paper would be a useful contribution: it extends the earlier finding of non-Gaussian residuals in Pantheon [42] to several dark-energy parameterizations and to redshift- and survey-based subsets, and it makes a concrete, testable statement about how the choice of likelihood changes H0 contours. The authors provide tabulated parameter constraints for all models and subsets, which is valuable for comparison, and they report Gelman-Rubin convergence values. However, the main quantitative claims currently rest on the diagonal-covariance approximation, on a logistic likelihood whose normalization appears incorrect as written, and on KS tests that are not calibrated for fitted parameters. These issues prevent acceptance of the conclusions as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.1), Fig. 1 caption] The entire analysis uses only the diagonal of the Pantheon covariance matrix. Eq. (3.1) defines χ² as a sum over individual σ_μ,i, and the Fig. 1 caption explicitly states 'assuming a diagonal covariance matrix'. The Pantheon covariance contains substantial off-diagonal systematic terms (e.g., photometric calibration and bias corrections) that are coherent across supernovae; the appropriate standardization under a Gaussian model is C^{-1/2} r, not r_i / √C_ii. Ignoring off-diagonal terms can distort the empirical residual distribution, bias the Gaussian-vs-Logistic comparison and the associated AIC/BIC/KS values, and change the MCMC contours, including the reported H0 shift from 70.16 to 73.04 km/s/Mpc. Because that shift is the paper's central quantitative claim, the diagonal-only approximation is load-bearing; the analysis should be repeated with the full covariance matrix or the authors should justify why off-diagonal terms are negligible for this dataset.
  2. [§3, Eq. (3.2)] The logistic likelihood in Eq. (3.2) is not normalized as written. With the prefactor π / (4√3 σ), the intended scale is s = √3 σ / π, so the argument of sech² should be (X_i - ⟨X⟩) π / (2√3 σ). The printed argument (X_i - ⟨X⟩) / (2√3 π σ) instead makes the density integrate to π², not 1, and changes the effective width by a factor π². This misspecification affects every logistic-likelihood value, and therefore the AIC/BIC comparison, the KS test construction, and all logistic MCMC parameter contours. Please correct Eq. (3.2) (or state the parameterization explicitly) and rerun the analysis.
  3. [§3, Appendix A (Tables 8–12)] The KS test p-values reported in Tables 8–12 are computed on residuals whose parameters (e.g., H0, Ωm, w0) have been estimated from the same data. Without a Lilliefors-type correction or a Monte Carlo calibration, the KS null distribution is not the standard one, so p-values such as 0.98 versus 0.16 are likely overconfident. The conclusion that the Logistic distribution is 'validated' by the KS test should be supported by corrected p-values, or the KS results should be explicitly described as illustrative only.
  4. [Abstract and Table 6] The abstract and §6 claim 'a preference for a cosmological constant model,' but Table 6 for the full dataset under the Logistic likelihood gives the largest Akaike weight to wCDM (0.711) and only 0.154 to ΛCDM. The table as presented supports a preference for constant-w dark energy over ΛCDM, not for the cosmological constant. Please reconcile the claim with the table, or clarify what 'preference for a cosmological constant model' refers to.
  5. [§5, Fig. 6] The claim that SDSS is inconsistent with the full Pantheon dataset at 'around 4σ' under the Logistic likelihood is stated without any quantitative definition of the tension. No parameter difference, combined error, or probability is given; the support is visual from Fig. 6. Please provide a quantitative tension metric or state that this is a qualitative observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'T ype Ia' in the title, 'Gaussain' in §6, and 'MCCHP' and 'MSH 0ES' in the Fig. 7 caption; these should be corrected.
  2. [§3, Eq. (3.1)] The text defines degrees of freedom as dof = N - M but then uses m for the number of parameters; please make the notation consistent.
  3. [§4.1, Akaike weights] The statement that a model should have at least a 0.352 difference in Akaike weight to be considered better appears to be derived from the ΔAIC ≥ 2 rule of thumb, but the weight difference corresponding to ΔAIC = 2 is 0.462; please check the derivation or provide a reference for the stated threshold.
  4. [§4] The phrase 'directly taken from the Pantheon data (G10) itself' is unclear; please specify which Pantheon release and whether the distance moduli include the fixed absolute magnitude M = -19.35.
  5. [§3, Eq. (3.2)] The logistic likelihood would benefit from an explicit statement of whether σ denotes the standard deviation or the scale parameter of the logistic distribution, as this affects the interpretation of the formula.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Logistic-vs-Gaussian comparison and the H0 shift are outputs of a self-contained likelihood analysis, with only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation for a dark-energy parameterization.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived by a self-contained statistical analysis of the published Pantheon dataset. The claim that a Logistic likelihood fits the distance-modulus residuals better than a Gaussian is an in-sample model comparison using AIC, BIC, and KS tests, with the Logistic density written in Eq. (3.2) using standardized residuals whose mean and variance are fixed (mean ≈ 0, σ ≈ 1); no shape parameter is fitted to the target statistic. The shift in H0 from 70.16 to 73.04 km/s/Mpc under the Logistic likelihood (Table 2) is the MCMC posterior mean under an alternative likelihood, not a fitted input, and therefore is not a prediction forced by construction. The prior result that residuals are better described by a Logistic distribution is attributed to Dainotti et al. [42], not to the present authors, and is independently re-derived here. The only self-citation is the Jassal-Bagla-Padmanabhan dark-energy parameterization [62,63], which appears as one of several parameterizations and is not load-bearing: the conclusions are stated in Section 6 to hold 'irrespective of the dark energy parametrisations'. The diagonal-covariance approximation noted in the Fig. 1 caption is a data-handling limitation that may bias the numerical results, but it does not create a circular step. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to the claim being tested.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard FLRW framework, the flatness assumption, a diagonal treatment of the Pantheon covariance matrix, and the assumption that residuals are i.i.d. with unit variance. The cosmological parameters are outputs of the fit, not ad hoc inputs. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math FLRW metric and Friedmann equations describe the background expansion.
    Used throughout Section 2 to define H(z) and distance moduli.
  • domain assumption Spatially flat universe (k=0).
    Adopted in Section 2 based on CMB observations; not tested here.
  • domain assumption Radiation and curvature energy densities are neglected.
    Section 2: 'we have neglected the contributions of radiation and curvature energy densities'.
  • domain assumption Distance moduli from the Pantheon G10 release are correct as published, with Scolnic's absolute magnitude calibration.
    Section 2, Eq (2.5); the paper does not refit standardization nuisance parameters.
  • domain assumption Residuals X_i are independent, zero-mean, unit-variance random variables.
    Section 3, Eqs (3.2)-(3.4); mean approximated to 0, sigma to 1.
  • domain assumption Only the diagonal part of the Pantheon covariance matrix matters for the likelihood.
    Fig 1 caption states 'assuming a diagonal covariance matrix'.
  • standard math Gelman-Rubin statistic near 1 indicates MCMC convergence.
    Appendix B; used to validate all reported chains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Critical Reanalysis of Supernova Type Ia Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRG5XLSH

@misc{pith2026250102204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Critical Reanalysis of Supernova Type Ia Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRG5XLSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02204}
}
read the original abstract

Cosmological parameter fitting remains crucial, especially with the abundance of available data. While many parameters have been tightly constrained, discrepancies-most notably the Hubble tension-persist between measurements obtained from different observational datasets. In this paper, we re-examine the Pantheon supernova dataset to explore deviations in the distribution of distance modulus residuals from the Gaussian distribution, which is typically the underlying assumption. We do this analysis for the concordant cosmological constant model and for a variety of dynamical dark energy models. It has been shown earlier that the residuals in this dataset are better fit to a logistic distribution. We compare the residual distributions assuming both Gaussian and Logistic likelihoods on the complete dataset, as well as various subsets of the data. The results, validated through various statistical tests, demonstrate that the Logistic likelihood provides a better fit for the full dataset and lower redshift bins, while higher redshift bins fit Gaussian and Logistic likelihoods similarly. Furthermore, the findings indicate a preference for a cosmological constant model. However analysing individual surveys within the Pantheon dataset reveals inconsistencies among subsets. The level of agreement between surveys varies depending upon the underlying likelihood function.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The viability of minimally and non-minimally coupled quintessence models is robust across CPL, JBP, BA, and EXP parameterizations, with all four reproducing the models' predicted observables accurately.

  2. On the Gaussian Assumption in the Estimation of Parameters for Dark Energy Models

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Pantheon+ supernova distance moduli and model residuals are found to be non-Gaussian, better fit by a skew-t distribution, and bootstrap confidence intervals are provided for an interacting dark-energy model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [42]

    Dainotti, G

    M. Dainotti, G. Bargiacchi, M. Bogdan, S. Capozziello and S. Nagataki,On the statistical assumption on the distance moduli of supernovae ia and its impact on the determination of cosmological parameters, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics41 (2024) 30

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Perlmutter, S

    S. Perlmutter, S. Gabi, G. Goldhaber, A. Goobar, D. Groom, I. Hook et al.,Measurements* of the cosmological parametersω and λ from the first seven supernovae at z≥ 0.35, The astrophysical journal 483 (1997) 565

    1997

  3. [2]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro et al.,Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal517 (1999) 565

    1999

  4. [3]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, The Astronomical Journal 116 (1998) 1009

    1998

  5. [4]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa,Dynamics of dark energy, International Journal of Modern Physics D 15 (2006) 1753

    2006

  6. [5]

    Blanchard, J.-Y

    A. Blanchard, J.-Y. Héloret, S. Ilíc, B. Lamine and I. Tutusaus,ΛCDM is alive and well, The Open Journal of Astrophysics7 (2024) 32 [2205.05017]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem, Reviews of modern physics61 (1989) 1

    S. Weinberg,The cosmological constant problem, Reviews of modern physics61 (1989) 1

    1989

  8. [7]

    Barreiro, E

    T. Barreiro, E. J. Copeland and N. a. Nunes,Quintessence arising from exponential potentials, Physical Review D 61 (2000) 127301

    2000

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    Ratra and P

    B. Ratra and P. J. Peebles,Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field, Physical Review D 37 (1988) 3406

    1988

  2. [9]

    Kamenshchik, U

    A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier,An alternative to quintessence, Physics Letters B511 (2001) 265

    2001

  3. [10]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,f (r) theories, Living Reviews in Relativity13 (2010) 1

    2010

  4. [11]

    Rippl, H

    S. Rippl, H. van Elst, R. Tavakol and D. Taylor,Kinematics and dynamics of f (r) theories of gravity, General Relativity and Gravitation28 (1996) 193

    1996

  5. [12]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni,f (r) theories of gravity, Reviews of Modern Physics82 (2010) 451

    2010

  6. [13]

    J. D. Bekenstein,Relativistic gravitation theory for the modified newtonian dynamics paradigm, Physical Review D70 (2004) 083509

    2004

  7. [14]

    Sanders,Cosmology with modified newtonian dynamics (mond), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 296 (1998) 1009

    R. Sanders,Cosmology with modified newtonian dynamics (mond), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 296 (1998) 1009. – 21 –

    1998

  8. [15]

    Bagla, H

    J. Bagla, H. K. Jassal and T. Padmanabhan,Cosmology with tachyon field as dark energy, Physical Review D 67 (2003) 063504

    2003

  9. [16]

    M. P. Rajvanshi and J. Bagla,Reconstruction of dynamical dark energy potentials: Quintessence, tachyon and interacting models, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy40 (2019) 1

    2019

  10. [17]

    M. P. Rajvanshi, A. Singh, H. Jassal and J. Bagla,Tachyonic vs quintessence dark energy: linear perturbations and cmb data, Classical and Quantum Gravity38 (2021) 195001

    2021

  11. [18]

    Sangwan, A

    A. Sangwan, A. Tripathi and H. Jassal,Observational constraints on quintessence models of dark energy, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09350(2018)

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Jimenez and A

    R. Jimenez and A. Loeb,Constraining Cosmological Parameters Based on Relative Galaxy Ages, Astrophys. J. 573 (2002) 37 [astro-ph/0106145]

    2002 arXiv

  13. [20]

    D. J. Eisenstein, I. Zehavi, D. W. Hogg, R. Scoccimarro, M. R. Blanton, R. C. Nichol et al.,Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, Astrophys. J. 633 (2005) 560 [astro-ph/0501171]

    2005 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Adame, J

    A. Adame, J. Aguilar, S. Ahlen, S. Alam, D. Alexander, M. Alvarez et al.,Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03002 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Rubin and J

    D. Rubin and J. Heitlauf,Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? all signs still point to yes: A local dipole anisotropy cannot explain dark energy, The Astrophysical Journal894 (2020) 68

    2020

  16. [23]

    Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont et al.,Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.594 (2016) A13 [1502.01589]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano et al.,A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the hubble constant with 1 km s- 1 mpc- 1 uncertainty from the hubble space telescope and the sh0es team, The Astrophysical journal letters934 (2022) L7

    2022

  18. [25]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al.,Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics641 (2020) A6

    2020

  19. [26]

    Hinshaw, D

    G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D. N. Spergel, C. Bennett, J. Dunkley et al.,Nine-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: cosmological parameter results, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208 (2013) 19

    2013

  20. [27]

    C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard et al.,Nine-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap) observations: final maps and results, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208 (2013) 20

    2013

  21. [28]

    Camilleri, T

    R. Camilleri, T. Davis, S. Hinton, P. Armstrong, D. Brout, L. Galbany et al.,The dark energy survey supernova program: An updated measurement of the hubble constant using the inverse distance ladder, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05049(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Abbott, M

    T. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam, O. Alves et al.,The dark energy survey: Cosmology results with˜ 1500 new high-redshift type ia supernovae using the full 5-year dataset, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02929 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Shlivko and P

    D. Shlivko and P. Steinhardt,Assessing observational constraints on dark energy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03933 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y. C. Pan, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley et al.,The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample, Astrophys. J. 859 (2018) 101 [1710.00845]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Scolnic, D

    D. Scolnic, D. Brout, A. Carr, A. G. Riess, T. M. Davis, A. Dwomoh et al.,The pantheon+ analysis: the full data set and light-curve release, The Astrophysical Journal938 (2022) 113

    2022

  26. [33]

    Niedermann and M

    F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth,Resolving the hubble tension with new early dark energy, Physical Review D 102 (2020) 063527

    2020

  27. [34]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski,Early dark energy can resolve the hubble tension, Physical review letters122 (2019) 221301. – 22 –

    2019

  28. [35]

    Adi and E

    T. Adi and E. D. Kovetz,Can conformally coupled modified gravity solve the hubble tension?, Physical Review D 103 (2021) 023530

    2021

  29. [36]

    E. N. Saridakis,Solving both h 0 andσ 8 tensions in f (t) gravity, inThe Sixteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field Theories: Proceedings of the MG16 Meeting on General Relat...

    2021

  30. [37]

    Schiavone, G

    T. Schiavone, G. Montani and F. Bombacigno,f(r) gravity in the jordan frame as a paradigm for the hubble tension, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters522 (2023) L72 [https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article-pdf/522/1/L72/54607212/slad041.pdf]

    2023

  31. [38]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro, L. A. Escamilla and E. Di Valentino,Kinetic model for dark energy–dark matter interaction: Scenario for the hubble tension, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15977(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    A. G. Riess, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, S. Casertano, L. M. Macri et al.,Jwst validates hst distance measurements: Selection of supernova subsample explains differences in jwst estimates of local h0, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11770(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee and K. A. Owens,Status report on the chicago-carnegie hubble program (cchp): Three independent astrophysical determinations of the hubble constant using the james webb space telescope, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    C. Gall, L. Izzo, R. Wojtak and J. Hjorth,The hubble constant from blue type ia supernovae, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05642 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Hicken, P

    M. Hicken, P. Challis, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, T. Matheson, M. Modjaz et al.,Cfa3: 185 type ia supernova light curves from the cfa, The Astrophysical Journal700 (2009) 331

    2009

  36. [44]

    Hicken, P

    M. Hicken, P. Challis, R. P. Kirshner, A. Rest, C. E. Cramer, W. M. Wood-Vasey et al.,Cfa4: light curves for 94 type ia supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series200 (2012) 12

    2012

  37. [45]

    Folatelli, M

    G. Folatelli, M. Phillips, C. R. Burns, C. Contreras, M. Hamuy, W. L. Freedman et al.,The carnegie supernova project: analysis of the first sample of low-redshift type-ia supernovae, The Astronomical Journal 139 (2009) 120

    2009

  38. [46]

    M. D. Stritzinger, M. Phillips, L. N. Boldt, C. Burns, A. Campillay, C. Contreras et al.,The carnegie supernova project: second photometry data release of low-redshift type ia supernovae, The Astronomical Journal 142 (2011) 156

    2011

  39. [47]

    K. C. Chambers, E. Magnier, N. Metcalfe, H. Flewelling, M. Huber, C. Waters et al.,The pan-starrs1 surveys, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. A. Frieman, B. Bassett, A. Becker, C. Choi, D. Cinabro, F. DeJongh et al.,The sloan digital sky survey-ii supernova survey: technical summary, The Astronomical Journal135 (2007) 338

    2007

  41. [49]

    Kessler, A

    R. Kessler, A. C. Becker, D. Cinabro, J. Vanderplas, J. A. Frieman, J. Marriner et al.,First-year sloan digital sky survey-ii supernova results: Hubble diagram and cosmological parameters, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 185 (2009) 32

    2009

  42. [50]

    Conley, J

    A. Conley, J. Guy, M. Sullivan, N. Regnault, P. Astier, C. Balland et al.,Supernova constraints and systematic uncertainties from the first three years of the supernova legacy survey, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 192 (2010) 1

    2010

  43. [51]

    Sullivan, J

    M. Sullivan, J. Guy, A. Conley, N. Regnault, P. Astier, C. Balland et al.,Snls3: Constraints on dark energy combining the supernova legacy survey three-year data with other probes, The Astrophysical Journal 737 (2011) 102

    2011

  44. [52]

    Suzuki, D

    N. Suzuki, D. Rubin, C. Lidman, G. Aldering, R. Amanullah, K. Barbary et al.,The hubble space telescope cluster supernova survey. v. improving the dark-energy constraints above z> 1 and building an early-type-hosted supernova sample, The Astrophysical Journal746 (2012) 85

    2012

  45. [53]

    A. G. Riess et al.,Supernova search team collaboration, Astron. J 116 (1998) 1009. – 23 –

    1998

  46. [54]

    Graur, S

    O. Graur, S. Rodney, D. Maoz, A. G. Riess, S. W. Jha, M. Postman et al.,Type-ia supernova rates to redshift 2.4 from clash: The cluster lensing and supernova survey with hubble, The Astrophysical Journal 783 (2014) 28

    2014

  47. [55]

    S. A. Rodney, A. G. Riess, L.-G. Strolger, T. Dahlen, O. Graur, S. Casertano et al.,Type ia supernova rate measurements to redshift 2.5 from candels: Searching for prompt explosions in the early universe, The Astronomical Journal148 (2014) 13

    2014

  48. [56]

    Scolnic, A

    D. Scolnic, A. Rest, A. Riess, M. E. Huber, R. J. Foley, D. Brout et al.,Systematic Uncertainties Associated with the Cosmological Analysis of the First Pan-STARRS1 Type Ia Supernova Sample, Astrophys. J. 795 (2014) 45 [1310.3824]

    2014 arXiv

  49. [57]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra,The cosmological constant and dark energy, Reviews of modern physics 75 (2003) 559

    2003

  50. [58]

    Tripathi, A

    A. Tripathi, A. Sangwan and H. Jassal,Dark energy equation of state parameter and its evolution at low redshift, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017 (2017) 012

    2017

  51. [59]

    Sangwan, A

    A. Sangwan, A. Mukherjee and H. Jassal,Reconstructing the dark energy potential, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018 (2018) 018

    2018

  52. [60]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski,Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, International Journal of Modern Physics D10 (2001) 213

    2001

  53. [61]

    E. V. Linder,Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Physical review letters90 (2003) 091301

    2003

  54. [62]

    Jassal, J

    H. Jassal, J. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan,Wmap constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters356 (2005) L11

    2005

  55. [63]

    H. K. Jassal, J. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan,Observational constraints on low redshift evolution of dark energy: How consistent are different observations?, Physical Review D72 (2005) 103503

    2005

  56. [64]

    G. Efstathiou,Constraining the equation of state of the universe from distant type ia supernovae and cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society310 (1999) 842

    1999

  57. [65]

    Feng and T

    L. Feng and T. Lu,A new equation of state for dark energy model, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2011 (2011) 034

    2011

  58. [66]

    Aldering, C

    G. Aldering, C. W. Akerlof, R. Amanullah, P. Astier, E. Barrelet, C. Bebek et al.,Overview of the supernova/acceleration probe (snap), inFuture Research Direction and Visions for Astronomy, vol. 4835, pp. 146–157, SPIE, 2002

    2002

  59. [67]

    Linder,Probing dark energy with snap, inThe Identification Of Dark Matter, pp

    E. Linder,Probing dark energy with snap, inThe Identification Of Dark Matter, pp. 52–57. World Scientific, 2003

    2003

  60. [68]

    Tripp,A two-parameter luminosity correction for type ia supernovae, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    R. Tripp,A two-parameter luminosity correction for type ia supernovae, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 331, p. 815-820 (1998)331 (1998) 815

    1998

  61. [69]

    Ginolin, M

    M. Ginolin, M. Rigault, M. Smith, Y. Copin, F. Ruppin, G. Dimitriadis et al.,Ztf sn ia dr2: Environmental dependencies of stretch and luminosity of a volume limited sample of 1,000 type ia supernovae, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20965(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Ginolin, M

    M. Ginolin, M. Rigault, Y. Copin, B. Popovic, G. Dimitriadis, A. Goobar et al.,Ztf sn ia dr2: Colour standardisation of type ia supernovae and its dependence on environment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02072 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin,Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences, Statistical science 7 (1992) 457

    1992

  64. [72]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: the mcmc hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125 (2013) 306

    2013

  65. [73]

    Bozdogan,Model selection and akaike’s information criterion (aic): The general theory and its analytical extensions, Psychometrika 52 (1987) 345

    H. Bozdogan,Model selection and akaike’s information criterion (aic): The general theory and its analytical extensions, Psychometrika 52 (1987) 345

    1987

  66. [74]

    Akaike,Information measures and model selection, International Statistical Institute, 1983

    H. Akaike,Information measures and model selection, International Statistical Institute, 1983

    1983

  67. [75]

    Wagenmakers and S

    E.-J. Wagenmakers and S. Farrell,Aic model selection using akaike weights, Psychonomic bulletin & review 11 (2004) 192. – 24 –

    2004

  68. [76]

    An,Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge didistribuzione, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att4 (1933) 89

    K. An,Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge didistribuzione, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att4 (1933) 89

    1933

  69. [77]

    Smirnov,Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions, The annals of mathematical statistics 19 (1948) 279

    N. Smirnov,Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions, The annals of mathematical statistics 19 (1948) 279

    1948

  70. [78]

    Montani, N

    G. Montani, N. Carlevaro and M. G. Dainotti,Running hubble constant: evolutionary dark energy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07060(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, T. Schiavone, G. Montani, E. Rinaldi and G. Lambiase,On the hubble constant tension in the sne ia pantheon sample, The Astrophysical Journal912 (2021) 150

    2021

  72. [80]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara,A reanalysis of the latest sh0es data for h 0: Effects of new degrees of freedom on the hubble tension, Universe 8 (2022) 502

    2022

  73. [81]

    Lovick, S

    T. Lovick, S. Dhawan and W. Handley,Non-gaussian likelihoods for type ia supernovae cosmology: Implications for dark energy andh_0, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02075(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Scolnic, S

    D. Scolnic, S. Casertano, A. Riess, A. Rest, E. Schlafly, R. Foley et al.,Supercal: cross-calibration of multiple photometric systems to improve cosmological measurements with type ia supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal 815 (2015) 117

    2015

  75. [83]

    Ghosh and C

    B. Ghosh and C. Bengaly,Consistency tests between sdss and desi bao measurements, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    E. Ó. Colgáin, M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Solomon, M. G. Dainotti and D. Stojkovic,Putting flat λcdm in the (redshift) bin, Physics of the Dark Universe44 (2024) 101464

    2024

  77. [85]

    Ó Colgáin, M

    E. Ó Colgáin, M. Sheikh-Jabbari, R. Solomon, G. Bargiacchi, S. Capozziello, M. G. Dainotti et al., Revealing intrinsic flatλ cdm biases with standardizable candles, Physical Review D106 (2022) L041301

    2022

  78. [86]

    Krishnan, E

    C. Krishnan, E. Ó. Colgáin, Ruchika, A. Sen, M. Sheikh-Jabbari and T. Yang,Is there an early universe solution to hubble tension?, Physical Review D102 (2020) 103525. – 25 –

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.