Comparing the DES-SN5YR and Pantheon+ SN cosmology analyses: investigation based on ‘evolving dark energy or supernovae systematics’?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent cosmological analyses measuring distances of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) and baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) have all given similar hints at time-evolving dark energy. To examine whether underestimated SN Ia systematics might be driving these results, Efstathiou (2025) compared overlapping SN events between Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR (20 per cent SNe are in common), and reported evidence for an $\sim$0.04 mag offset between the low- and high-redshift distance measurements of this subsample of events. If this offset is arbitrarily subtracted from the entire DES-SN5YR sample, the preference for evolving dark energy is reduced. In this paper, we show that this offset is mostly due to different corrections for Malmquist bias between the two samples; therefore, an object-to-object comparison can be misleading. Malmquist bias corrections differ between the two analyses for several reasons. First, DES-SN5YR used an improved model of SN Ia luminosity scatter compared to Pantheon+ but the associated scatter-model uncertainties are included in the error budget. Secondly, improvements in host mass estimates in DES-SN5YR also affected SN standardized magnitudes and their bias corrections. Thirdly, and most importantly, the selection functions of the two compilations are significantly different, hence the inferred Malmquist bias corrections. Even if the original scatter model and host properties from Pantheon+ are used instead, the evidence for evolving dark energy from CMB, DESI BAO Year 1 and DES-SN5YR is only reduced from 3.9$\sigma$ to 3.3$\sigma$, consistent with the error budget. Finally, in this investigation, we identify an underestimated systematic uncertainty related to host galaxy property uncertainties, which could increase the final DES-SN5YR error budget by 3 per cent. In conclusion, we confirm the validity of the published DES-SN5YR results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".