Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 18 references

Corrected Pantheon+ and first DES-DOVEKIE distance-ladder runs still give H0 near 73 and leave the Hubble tension above 6σ.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 14:43 UTC pith:RB23SKGD

load-bearing objection Clean public H0DN rerun: corrected Pantheon+ magnitudes and first DES-DOVEKIE ladder both leave H0 near 73; tension stays ~6.4–6.9σ and is not fixed by the SN revisions that tightened dynamical-DE evidence. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24443 v1 pith:RB23SKGD submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Updated 1.1% Precision Values of the Hubble Constant with Corrected Pantheon+ and Dark Energy Survey (DES)-DOVEKIE Type Ia Supernovae

Shouvik Roy Choudhury This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords Hubble constantHubble tensionType Ia supernovaePantheon+DES-DOVEKIEdistance ladderH0 Distance Networkhost-mass correction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Local distance-ladder measurements of the present expansion rate sit well above the value inferred from the cosmic microwave background in standard ΛCDM. This paper updates that local measurement with two revised Type Ia supernova products: corrected Pantheon+ host-mass magnitudes and the DES-DOVEKIE sample, used here for the first time on a distance ladder. The main baseline result applies only the revised magnitudes to 52 of 277 Hubble-flow rows inside the existing H0 Distance Network, leaving calibrators, covariance, redshifts, and velocities untouched, and finds H0 = 73.264 ± 0.806 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹—still 6.85σ above the CMB value of 67.24 ± 0.35. Full-rung Pantheon+ replacement and DES-DOVEKIE runs with a fixed or propagated magnitude offset stay near 73. Extending either sample to redshift ~0.3 raises rather than lowers H0, by amounts smaller than the network uncertainty. The same supernova revisions that now give consistent ~3σ evidence for dynamical dark energy therefore do not ease the early–late H0 disagreement.

Core claim

Applying the revised Pantheon+ host-mass magnitude corrections to the 52 affected H0DN Hubble-flow rows, with network covariance, redshifts, and velocities held fixed, yields H0 = 73.264 ± 0.806 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ and a 6.85σ tension with H0^CMB,ΛCDM = 67.24 ± 0.35. Replacing the full Hubble-flow rung or substituting DES-DOVEKIE (first application to a distance ladder) via a constant overlap offset produces values still near 73; neither update resolves the tension.

What carries the argument

The H0 Distance Network fit that converts the calibrated SN Ia absolute magnitude MB and the Hubble-flow intercept αB into H0 through log10 H0 = 0.2 MB + αB + 5, together with a single additive offset that places public DES-DOVEKIE distance moduli onto the H0DN apparent-magnitude scale.

Load-bearing premise

A single redshift-independent additive offset, measured from 196 overlapping supernovae, is enough to put the entire DES-DOVEKIE sample on the same magnitude scale as the network, with no joint cross-covariance available.

What would settle it

A public joint DES–Pantheon+ cross-covariance, or a clearly detected redshift trend in the overlap offsets, that moves the DES-based H0DN central value by several tenths of a km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ toward the CMB figure would directly test whether the offset treatment is holding the result near 73.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The community baseline local H0 to quote from this network update is 73.264 ± 0.806 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ (6.85σ tension).
  • Supernova revisions that align Pantheon+, DES-DOVEKIE, and Union3.1 on dynamical dark evidence leave the local distance scale essentially unchanged.
  • Extending the Hubble-flow rung to z_HD ≃ 0.3 raises H0 rather than lowering it, so the tension is not an artifact of the low-redshift cut.
  • Calibrator supernovae are untouched by the host-mass correction, so the ladder zero point is not the source of the small downward shift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If dynamical dark energy is real at the reported 3.2–3.4σ level, the tension must be resolved by early-universe or new-physics routes rather than by further low-z supernova recalibration.
  • A future Union3.1 public release of individual magnitudes, redshifts, and peculiar-velocity corrections would allow the same H0DN test and close the remaining sample gap.
  • The influence-weighted magnitude shift of only 0.0085 mag versus the 0.236 mag coherent shift needed to reach the CMB value quantifies how far host-mass fixes alone are from closing the gap.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript updates the H0 Distance Network (H0DN) distance-ladder determination of H0 using two recent supernova data products: (i) Pantheon+ magnitudes revised by a self-consistent host-mass remeasurement (114 of 1701 rows changed; 52 of the 277 H0DN Hubble-flow rows affected, no calibrators touched), and (ii) the DES-DOVEKIE recalibration, used here for the first time in a distance-ladder H0 determination. The main baseline applies only the 52 magnitude corrections with H0DN covariance, redshifts, and velocities held fixed, giving H0 = 73.264 ± 0.806 km/s/Mpc (6.85σ above the adopted CMB+ΛCDM reference 67.24 ± 0.35). Variants — full Hubble-flow rung replacement (73.139 ± 0.791), DES-DOVEKIE with a fixed overlap-derived magnitude offset (73.267 ± 0.828), with offset covariance propagated (73.175 ± 0.854), and a median-offset variant (72.991 ± 0.825) — all remain near 73. Extensions of both samples to z_HD = 0.3 raise H0 by less than the baseline uncertainty, and a z_HD > 0.05 peculiar-velocity check leaves the result intact. The paper's central conclusion is that the supernova revisions which drive the recent cross-sample evidence for dynamical dark energy do not materially reduce the Hubble tension.

Significance. If the numbers hold, this is a useful and timely negative result: it decouples the low-z supernova revisions now central to the dynamical-dark-energy discussion from the Hubble tension, and it constitutes the first distance-ladder application of DES-DOVEKIE. Particular strengths are the use of the public H0DN code for exact reruns rather than approximate rescaling; the influence analysis g_i = ∂H0/∂m_b,i, whose linear prediction (−0.236) matches the exact rerun (−0.235) and transparently shows the weighted correction is only 0.0085 mag against the 0.236 mag coherently required to reach the CMB value; and a set of genuinely informative robustness checks (median vs weighted-mean offset, |c_SALT| cut, nested z_HD extensions with correlated errors propagated from 5000 joint draws, and a low-z peculiar-velocity cut). The analysis is reproducible in principle from public inputs. The Pantheon+ baseline update appears structurally robust: no plausible error-model detail can move a 0.0085 mag weighted correction by a meaningful fraction of σ_H0.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (2.3) and Fig. 1(b)] The adequacy of the single constant C_DES rests on the fitted redshift slope 0.195 ± 0.255 mag/z being 'only 0.76σ from zero.' This is an underpowered null test: the data also admit a slope of ~0.45 mag/z, which over the fiducial span Δz ≈ 0.125 would allow ~0.05 mag of zero-point drift, corresponding to roughly 1.5 km/s/Mpc on the DES H0. Moreover C_DES is fit on the same low-z sample (196 of the 220 objects) to which it is applied, so the DES result is partially self-calibrating. Please add a quantitative variant: e.g., fit C_DES in two redshift bins, or fit and marginalize over a linear slope C(z), and report the resulting H0 shift. I expect the effect to be small (the median-offset and color-cut variants already bracket it), but the current text overstates the test's power: 'no resolved trend' should not be presented as 'no trend.'
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (2.6)] The propagated-offset covariance sets the DES–Pantheon+ cross term to zero because no public joint covariance exists, yet 196 of the 220 DES-DOVEKIE supernovae are shared with corrected Pantheon+, so standardization and calibration systematics are substantially common-mode. The propagated DES uncertainty (0.854) is therefore likely an underestimate, and the two Pantheon+ and DES H0 values are not as independent as Table 1 and Fig. 1(a) visually suggest. The text acknowledges this in one sentence, but please quantify the plausible impact — e.g., a bound obtained by assuming full correlation of the shared-standardization component of V_R and V_D on the overlap rows — and state explicitly in §3.1 that the DES and Pantheon+ cases are correlated cross-checks, not independent measurements.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§2.2] The decision to keep the H0DN covariance fixed while updating the 52 magnitudes is defended only by the qualitative statement that bias-correction uncertainties are small at low z. Since the host-mass correction enters via the standardization, please give a number (e.g., the mass-step/bias-correction contribution to the diagonal for the affected rows) or cite the relevant Pantheon+ systematic budget. Given the 0.0085 mag influence-weighted correction this cannot matter, but the claim should be substantiated.
  2. [§4 (Conclusion)] The phrase 'the most up-to-date Hubble constant value for the astrophysics community' is an overstatement for a single-rung update of a community consensus product (H0DN) using a partially shared calibration chain. I recommend softening to a description of what was computed (an update of the H0DN supernova rung with corrected Pantheon+ inputs).
  3. [§3.2] The DES-DOVEKIE rise of 0.728 ± 0.233 km/s/Mpc is ~3σ from zero and deserves one more sentence of interpretation. With (q0, j0) fixed, any genuine expansion-history effect in 0.15 < z < 0.3 is absorbed into H0, so the rise cannot distinguish cosmology from selection/calibration drift — the text says this for the difference between samples but not clearly for the DES rise itself. Also, the abstract's 'both rises are smaller than the H0DN uncertainty' is only marginally true for DES (0.728 vs ~0.8); state it as '<1σ' precisely.
  4. [§3.2] Sentence fragment/typo: 'for which j0 = 1 and q0 = 1/2 Ωm − ΩΛ = −0.55, ΩΛ = 1 − Ωm where .' — the trailing 'where' and punctuation are garbled; please fix.
  5. [§2.3] Please clarify the role of the 24 DES-DOVEKIE supernovae not in the overlap: they enter the Hubble-flow rung but not the offset fit, so their distance scale is extrapolated from C_DES. One sentence on their weight in the fit would help. Also clarify '197 external-survey and 23 DES-observed' versus '206 observed by DES' at z=0.3 — the composition change with redshift cut is worth a clause.
  6. [§3.1, Eq. (3.2)] The definition of t_CMB assumes Gaussian, uncorrelated errors between the H0DN result and the CMB reference. This is standard, but please state the assumption explicitly, since several σ-figures (6.85σ, 6.43σ) are quoted prominently in the abstract.
  7. [Figure 1(b)] In panel (b) the fitted redshift-trend line is nearly indistinguishable from the weighted-mean line at this vertical scale; consider annotating the slope value directly on the panel or noting in the caption that the two lines nearly coincide.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: H0 is recomputed from external corrected SN data in a public network against a fixed external CMB reference.

full rationale

This is a straightforward data-update paper, not a first-principles derivation. The load-bearing chain is: (i) take publicly shared corrected Pantheon+ magnitudes (or DES-DOVEKIE distance moduli plus an overlap-measured additive offset), (ii) insert them into the external public H0DN fit with fixed (q0,j0), and (iii) compare the resulting H0 to an external CMB+ΛCDM value (67.24±0.35). Equation (2.1) is the standard intercept-to-H0 conversion; it does not define H0 in terms of itself. The DES constant C_DES is a cross-calibration nuisance measured from 196 overlaps to place two magnitude conventions on one scale—not a fitted parameter renamed as an independent prediction of H0. Influence-weighted response checks (g_i Δ_i ≈ −0.236) and complete-rung / median-offset / color-cut variants are consistency tests, not self-definitional closures. Corrected Pantheon+ and H0DN are external products (Hoyt/Rubin; H0DN collaboration); the present author is not load-bearing on those citations. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of a known result appears. Score 0 is the honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result is a data-pipeline update inside an existing distance network. Load-bearing inputs are the public H0DN likelihood and calibrators, fixed cosmographic parameters, external SN magnitude/modulus catalogs, and a single empirical DES–Pantheon+ magnitude offset. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are inherited network/SN standardization choices plus the measured offset treatment.

free parameters (4)
  • C_DES (DES–H0DN magnitude offset) = −19.3766 mag (weighted mean); median −19.3660 mag
    Weighted mean of m_corr_b − μ_DES over 196 overlaps places DES moduli on the H0DN scale; central DES H0 runs hold it fixed or propagate its available covariance.
  • q0, j0 cosmographic parameters = q0=−0.55, j0=1
    Fixed to H0DN baseline values so all comparisons are SN-data changes only; equivalent to flat ΛCDM with Ωm=0.30 at the quoted order.
  • H0DN SN Ia absolute magnitude MB and network calibrators = Inherited from H0DN baseline (not refit here)
    Local rung absolute scale is taken from the public H0DN fit; this paper does not refit geometric anchors and states calibrator SN magnitudes are unchanged.
  • Fiducial Hubble-flow redshift window = z_HD,max=0.151 fiducial
    Primary results use 0.0232≤z_HD≤0.151 (DES selection 0.025–0.151); extensions to 0.20/0.25/0.30 are sensitivity tests with offset held fixed.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Public H0DN combines SN Hubble-flow intercept α_B with calibrated MB via log10 H0=0.2 MB+α_B+5 and other non-SN indicators, so SN-only magnitude shifts do not map 1:1 to full-network H0.
    Stated in §2.1; motivates the 0.236 mag coherent shift needed to reach 67.24 versus 0.193 mag SN-only.
  • domain assumption Revised host-mass corrections change standardized m_b for 52 Hubble-flow rows but none of the 55 calibrators, and low-z bias-correction covariance need not be rebuilt.
    §2.2; central magnitude-only baseline depends on calibrators being unaffected and covariance held fixed.
  • ad hoc to paper A single additive constant adequately converts DES-DOVEKIE μ (normalized at H0=70) to H0DN m_b, justified by small overlap scatter and no significant redshift trend.
    §2.3 Eqs. (2.3)–(2.4); load-bearing for all DES H0 cases.
  • ad hoc to paper Unprovided joint DES–Pantheon+ cross-covariance can be set to zero when propagating offset uncertainty.
    Explicitly stated after Eq. (2.6); increases reported DES uncertainty case but is an incompleteness assumption.
  • domain assumption Gaussian tension t_CMB against H0^CMB,ΛCDM=67.24±0.35 from joint Planck+ACT+SPT flat ΛCDM is the right early-universe comparator.
    §3.1 Eq. (3.2) and H0DN reference choice [21].
  • domain assumption Third-order redshift expansion with fixed (q0,j0) is adequate through z_HD≃0.3 for relative-distance tests.
    §3.2; ~1 mmag departure from flat ΛCDM Ωm=0.30 claimed in that range.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 16244 in / 3951 out tokens · 75647 ms · 2026-07-31T14:43:44.345125+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We update the Hubble constant measurement with corrected Pantheon+ and DES-DOVEKIE supernovae. The use of DES-DOVEKIE here is the first application of DES-DOVEKIE to a distance-ladder $H_0$ determination. Recent reanalyses of supernova datasets have put Pantheon+, DES-DOVEKIE, and Union3.1 samples on the same footing with regard to the evidence of dynamical dark energy ($3.2$--$3.4\sigma$), and thus an update on the Hubble constant is the next logical step. The $H_0$ Distance Network (H0DN) baseline is $73.499\pm0.809$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, a $7.1\sigma$ tension with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) determination in a $\Lambda$ cold-dark-matter ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmology, $H_0^{\rm CMB,\Lambda CDM}=67.24\pm0.35$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. A revised host-mass correction applied to the older Pantheon+ changes 114 of the total 1701 apparent-magnitude rows. The calibrator supernovae are not affected, but 52 of the 277 Hubble-flow rows are. Applying only these magnitude corrections, with the H0DN covariance, redshifts, and velocities unchanged, gives $H_0=73.264\pm0.806$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and a $6.85\sigma$ Hubble tension. This is our main baseline result and the update for the astrophysics community. Alternatively, replacing the complete Hubble-flow treatment with the corrected Pantheon+ data gives $73.139\pm0.791$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $6.82\sigma$. For DES-DOVEKIE, 220 supernovae span $0.025\le z_{\rm HD}\le0.151$ in Hubble-diagram redshift, and 196 of them overlap with corrected Pantheon+. These overlaps determine the offset used to place the public DES-DOVEKIE distance moduli on the H0DN apparent-magnitude scale. Holding this offset fixed gives $H_0=73.267\pm0.828$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and a $6.70\sigma$ tension. Extending to $z_{\rm HD}\simeq0.3$ raises $H_0$. However, both rises are smaller than the H0DN uncertainty. Neither update resolves the Hubble tension. (abridged)

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu and A.G. Riess,Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,Nature Astron.3(2019) 891 [1907.10625]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri et al.,In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) 153001 [2103.01183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Kamionkowski and A.G

    M. Kamionkowski and A.G. Riess,The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73(2023) 153 [2211.04492]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Riess 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, Astrophys

    A.G. Riess 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, Astrophys. J. Lett.934(2022) L7 [2112.04510]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Freedman, B.F

    W.L. Freedman, B.F. Madore, T.J. Hoyt, I.S. Jang, A.J. Lee and K.A. Owens,Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes,Astrophys. J.985(2025) 203 [2408.06153]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Pesce et al.,The Megamaser Cosmology Project

    D.W. Pesce et al.,The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble constant constraints,Astrophys. J. Lett.891(2020) L1 [2001.09213]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Blakeslee, J.B

    J.P. Blakeslee, J.B. Jensen, C.-P. Ma, P.A. Milne and J.E. Greene,The Hubble Constant from Infrared Surface Brightness Fluctuation Distances,Astrophys. J.911(2021) 65 [2101.02221]. [8]H0DNcollaboration,The Local Distance Network: A community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at∼1% precision,Astron. Astrophys.708(2026) A166 [2510.23823]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    Phillips,The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae,Astrophys

    M.M. Phillips,The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae,Astrophys. J. Lett.413(1993) L105

    1993

  9. [10]

    Tripp,A Two-parameter luminosity correction for type Ia supernovae,Astron

    R. Tripp,A Two-parameter luminosity correction for type Ia supernovae,Astron. Astrophys. 331(1998) 815. [11]SNLScollaboration,SALT2: Using distant supernovae to improve the use of Type Ia supernovae as distance indicators,Astron. Astrophys.466(2007) 11 [astro-ph/0701828]. – 9 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  10. [12]

    Brout and D

    D. Brout and D. Scolnic,It’s Dust: Solving the Mysteries of the Intrinsic Scatter and Host-galaxy Dependence of Standardized Type Ia Supernova Brightnesses,Astrophys. J.909 (2021) 26 [2004.10206]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [13]

    T.J. Hoyt, D. Rubin, G. Aldering, S. Perlmutter, A. Cuceu and R. Gupta,Union3.1: Self-consistent Measurements of Host Galaxy Properties for 2000 Type Ia Supernovae, 2601.19424

    arXiv 2000

  12. [14]

    Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys

    D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 110 [2202.04077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [15]

    Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys

    D. Scolnic et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release, Astrophys. J.938(2022) 113 [2112.03863]. [16]DEScollaboration,The Dark Energy Survey: Cosmology Results with∼1500 New High-redshift Type Ia Supernovae Using the Full 5 yr Data Set,Astrophys. J. Lett.973(2024) L14 [2401.02929]. [17]DEScollaboration,The Dark Energy Survey S...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [19]

    Carr, T.M

    A. Carr, T.M. Davis, D. Scolnic, D. Scolnic, K. Said, D. Brout et al.,The Pantheon+ analysis: Improving the redshifts and peculiar velocities of Type Ia supernovae used in cosmological analyses,Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.39(2022) e046 [2112.01471]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [20]

    Peterson et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Evaluating Peculiar Velocity Corrections in Cosmological Analyses with Nearby Type Ia Supernovae,Astrophys

    E.R. Peterson et al.,The Pantheon+ Analysis: Evaluating Peculiar Velocity Corrections in Cosmological Analyses with Nearby Type Ia Supernovae,Astrophys. J.938(2022) 112 [2110.03487]. [21]SPT-3Gcollaboration,SPT-3G D1: CMB temperature and polarization power spectra and cosmology from 2019 and 2020 observations of the SPT-3G main field,Phys. Rev. D113 (2026...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [22]

    Cattoen and M

    C. Cattoen and M. Visser,The Hubble series: Convergence properties and redshift variables, Class. Quant. Grav.24(2007) 5985 [0710.1887]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [23]

    Hui and P.B

    L. Hui and P.B. Greene,Correlated Fluctuations in Luminosity Distance and the (Surprising) Importance of Peculiar Motion in Supernova Surveys,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 123526 [astro-ph/0512159]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [24]

    Davis et al.,The Effect of Peculiar Velocities on Supernova Cosmology,Astrophys

    T.M. Davis et al.,The Effect of Peculiar Velocities on Supernova Cosmology,Astrophys. J.741 (2011) 67 [1012.2912]. – 10 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011