- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Impact of the SNe Ia magnitude transition at 20 Mpc on cosmological parameter estimation

Leandros Perivolaropoulos1,* and Chrisostomos-Panagiotis Stamou2,†

  • *Contact author: leandros@uoi.gr
  • †Contact author: c.p.stamou@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 123512 – Published 5 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ct51-7wz5

Abstract

We investigate the impact of a late-time transition in the standardized absolute magnitude M on the best-fit values of cosmological parameters using the Pantheon+dataset. Extending previous analyses which focused on flat ΛCDM, we examine this transition within flat ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter), wCDM (cold dark matter with a constant dark energy equation of state w), and CPL (Chevallier-Polarski-Linder) cosmologies as well as a model-independent cosmographic expansion, employing both frequentist (χ2 minimization with Akaike Information Criterion/Bayesian Information Criterion) and Bayesian (Markov-chain Monte Carlo and nested sampling) inference frameworks. We confirm that the data consistently favor a step in absolute magnitude of ΔM≃0.19  mag at a characteristic distance of dcrit≈20  Mpc. The inclusion of this transition leads to a statistically significant improvement in the quality of fit and has a distinct impact on parameter estimation: it induces a systematic increase in the inferred Hubble constant of approximately 2% across all tested models. In contrast, we find that the dynamical parameters governing the background expansion, including the matter density Ωm and the dark energy equation of state (w0,wa), remain stable and largely unaffected. These results indicate that the 20 Mpc feature acts primarily as a low-redshift calibration shift rather than a modification of the late-time expansion history.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (89)

  1. Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara, Challenges for ΛCDM: An update, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022).
  2. L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Tensions between the early and the late universe, Nat. Astron. 3, 891 (2019).
  3. Jose Luis Bernal, Licia Verde, and Adam G. Riess, The trouble with H0, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2016) 019.
  4. Dragan Huterer and Daniel L Shafer, Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 016901 (2018).
  5. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  6. Adam 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, L7 (2022).
  7. Dillon Brout et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: Cosmological constraints, Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022).
  8. D. M. Scolnic 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, 101 (2018).
  9. S. Dhawan, D. Brout, D. Scolnic, A. Goobar, A. G. Riess, and V. Miranda, Cosmological model insensitivity of local H0 from the cepheid distance ladder, Astrophys. J. 894, 54 (2020).
  10. R. Kessler and D. Scolnic, Correcting type Ia supernova distances for selection biases and contamination in photometrically identified samples, Astrophys. J. 836, 56 (2017).
  11. Adam G. Riess et al., A 2.4% determination of the local value of the Hubble constant, Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016).
  12. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020).
  13. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A1 (2020).
  14. G. E. Addison, Y. Huang, D. J. Watts, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, and J. L. Weiland, Quantifying discordance in the 2015 Planck CMB spectrum, Astrophys. J. 818, 132 (2016).
  15. Lloyd Knox and Marius Millea, The Hubble hunter’s guide, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043533 (2020).
  16. Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lucas M. Macri, and Dan Scolnic, Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid standards provide a 1% foundation for the determination of the Hubble constant and stronger evidence for physics beyond ΛCDM, Astrophys. J. 876, 85 (2019).
  17. Dan Scolnic et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: The full data set and light-curve release, Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022).
  18. Anthony Carr et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: Improving the redshifts and peculiar velocities of type Ia supernovae used in cosmological analyses, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 39, e046 (2022).
  19. Erik R. Peterson et al., The Pantheon+Analysis: Evaluating peculiar velocity corrections in cosmological analyses with nearby type Ia supernovae, Astrophys. J. 938, 112 (2022).
  20. J. P. Hu, Y. Y. Wang, J. Hu, and F. Y. Wang, Testing the cosmological principle with the Pantheon+sample and the region-fitting method, Astron. Astrophys. 681, A88 (2024).
  21. S. Dhawan and E. Mörtsell, Type Ia supernova constraints on compact object dark matter, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 524, 5762 (2023).
  22. Eoin Ó. Colgáin, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and Rance Solomon, High redshift ΛCDM cosmology: To bin or not to bin?, Phys. Dark Universe 40, 101216 (2023).
  23. Deng Wang, Pantheon+ tomography and Hubble tension, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 813 (2023).
  24. W. D’Arcy Kenworthy et al., Measurements of the Hubble constant with a two-rung distance ladder: Two out of three ain’t bad, Astrophys. J. 935, 83 (2022).
  25. Eleonora Di Valentino et al., In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 153001 (2021).
  26. David Camarena and Valerio Marra, Local determination of the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013028 (2020).
  27. Dragan Huterer and Hao-Yi Wu, Not empty enough: A local void cannot solve the h0 tension, arXiv:2309.05749.
  28. Joan Solà, Adrià Gómez-Valent, and Javier de Cruz Pérez, The H0 tension in light of vacuum dynamics in the Universe, Phys. Lett. B 774, 317 (2017).
  29. George Efstathiou, To h0 or not to h0?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, 3866 (2021).
  30. Nandita Khetan et al., A new measurement of the Hubble constant using type Ia supernovae calibrated with surface brightness fluctuations, Astron. Astrophys. 647, A72 (2021).
  31. D. Scolnic et al., Systematic uncertainties associated with the cosmological analysis of the first pan-starrs1 type Ia supernova sample, Astrophys. J. 795, 45 (2014).
  32. Xuchen Lu and Yungui Gong, Supernova calibration by gravitational wave, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 949 (2023).
  33. Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski, Early dark energy can resolve the Hubble tension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019).
  34. Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, and Tanvi Karwal, The ups and downs of early dark energy solutions to the Hubble tension: A review of models, hints and constraints Circa 2023, Phys. Dark Universe 42, 101348 (2023).
  35. Marc Kamionkowski and Adam G. Riess, The Hubble tension and early dark energy, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153 (2023).
  36. Manuel A. Buen-Abad, Martin Schmaltz, Julien Lesgourgues, and Thejs Brinckmann, Interacting dark sector and precision cosmology, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2018) 008.
  37. Manuel A. Buen-Abad, Zackaria Chacko, Ina Flood, Can Kilic, Gustavo Marques-Tavares, and Taewook Youn, Atomic dark matter, interacting dark radiation, and the Hubble tension, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2025) 084.
  38. George Efstathiou, Erik Rosenberg, and Vivian Poulin, Improved Planck constraints on axion-like early dark energy as a resolution of the Hubble tension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 221002 (2024).
  39. M. Rigault et al., Strong dependence of type Ia supernova standardization on the local specific star formation rate, Astron. Astrophys. 644, A176 (2020).
  40. B. Popovic et al., Modelling the impact of host galaxy dust on type Ia supernova distance measurements, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 534, 2263 (2024).
  41. M. Toy et al., Reduction of the type Ia supernova host galaxy step in the outer regions of galaxies, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 538, 181 (2025).
  42. Vivian Poulin, Kimberly K. Boddy, Simeon Bird, and Marc Kamionkowski, Implications of an extended dark energy cosmology with massive neutrinos for cosmological tensions, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123504 (2018).
  43. Kevin Aylor, Mackenzie Joy, Lloyd Knox, Marius Millea, Srinivasan Raghunathan, and W. L. Kimmy Wu, Sounds discordant: Classical distance ladder and λcdm−based determinations of the cosmological sound horizon, Astrophys. J. 874, 4 (2019).
  44. Rong-Gen Cai, Zong-Kuan Guo, Shao-Jiang Wang, Wang-Wei Yu, and Yong Zhou, No-go guide for the Hubble tension: Late-time solutions, Phys. Rev. D 105, L021301 (2022).
  45. Prakhar Bansal and Dragan Huterer, On the difficulties with late-time solutions for the Hubble tension, arXiv:2602.06293.
  46. Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara, Hubble tension or a transition of the cepheid SnIa calibrator parameters?, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123511 (2021).
  47. Valerio Marra and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, A rapid transition of Geff at zt≃0.01 as a possible solution of the Hubble and growth tensions, Phys. Rev. D 104, L021303 (2021).
  48. George Alestas, Ioannis Antoniou, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, Hints for a gravitational transition in tully–Fisher data, Universe 7, 366 (2021).
  49. Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara, On the homogeneity of snia absolute magnitude in the Pantheon+sample, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520, 5110 (2023).
  50. H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716 (1974).
  51. Giampaolo Benevento, Wayne Hu, and Marco Raveri, Can late dark energy transitions raise the Hubble constant?, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103517 (2020).
  52. Eleonora Di Valentino, Eric V. Linder, and Alessandro Melchiorri, Vacuum phase transition solves the H0 tension, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043528 (2018).
  53. Abdolali Banihashemi, Nima Khosravi, and Amir H. Shirazi, Phase transition in the dark sector as a proposal to lessen cosmological tensions, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123521 (2020).
  54. George Alestas, David Camarena, Eleonora Di Valentino, Lavrentios Kazantzidis, Valerio Marra, Savvas Nesseris, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, Late-transition versus smooth H(z)-deformation models for the resolution of the Hubble crisis, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063538 (2022).
  55. Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W. Rosenbluth, Marshall N. Rosenbluth, Augusta H. Teller, and Edward Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
  56. W. K. Hastings, Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970).
  57. John Skilling, Nested sampling, in Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 735, edited by Rainer Fischer, Roland Preuss, and Udo Von Toussaint (American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2004), pp. 395–405.
  58. Michel Chevallier and David Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001).
  59. Eric V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003).
  60. J. Guy et al., Salt2: Using distant supernovae to improve the use of type Ia supernovae as distance indicators, Astron. Astrophys. 466, 11 (2007).
  61. Gideon Schwarz, Estimating the dimension of a model, Ann. Stat. 6, 461 (1978).
  62. Andrew R. Liddle, How many cosmological parameters?, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 351, L49 (2004).
  63. Roberto Trotta, Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemp. Phys. 49, 71 (2008).
  64. Christian P. Robert, Nicolas Chopin, and Judith Rousseau, Harold Jeffreys’s theory of probability revisited, Stat. Sci. 24, 141 (2009).
  65. Joshua S. Speagle, dynesty: A dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020).
  66. Daniel Foreman-Mackey, David W. Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman, ¡tt¿emcee¡/tt¿: The MCMC hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013).
  67. Joshua S Speagle, dynesty: A dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020).
  68. Matt Visser, Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state, Classical Quantum Gravity 21, 2603 (2004).
  69. Jun-Qing Xia, Vincenzo Vitagliano, Stefano Liberati, and Matteo Viel, Cosmography beyond standard candles and rulers, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043520 (2012).
  70. Céline Cattoën and Matt Visser, The Hubble series: Convergence properties and redshift variables, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, 5985 (2007).
  71. Bill S. Wright and Baojiu Li, Type Ia supernovae, standardizable candles, and gravity, Phys. Rev. D 97, 083505 (2018).
  72. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution, Phys. Rep. 692, 1 (2017).
  73. Artyom V. Astashenok, Sergey D. Odintsov, and Vasilis Oikonomou, Chandrasekhar mass limit of white dwarfs in modified gravity, Symmetry 15, 1141 (2023).
  74. Upasana Das and Banibrata Mukhopadhyay, Modified Einstein’s gravity as a possible missing link between sub- and super-Chandrasekhar type Ia supernovae, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2015) 045.
  75. G. A. Carvalho, R. V. Lobato, P. H. R. S. Moraes, José D. V. Arbañil, E. Otoniel, R. M. Marinho, and M. Malheiro, Stellar equilibrium configurations of white dwarfs in the f(r, t) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 871 (2017).
  76. E. Gaztanaga, E. Garcia-Berro, J. Isern, E. Bravo, and I. Dominguez, Bounds on the possible evolution of the gravitational constant from cosmological type Ia supernovae, Phys. Rev. D 65, 023506 (2002).
  77. Jeremy Mould and Syed A. Uddin, Constraining a possible variation of g with type Ia supernovae, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 31, e015 (2014).
  78. Mario Ballardini, Matteo Braglia, Fabio Finelli, Daniela Paoletti, Alexei A. Starobinsky, and Caterina Umiltà, Scalar-tensor theories of gravity, neutrino physics, and the H0 tension, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2020) 044.
  79. Mario Ballardini and Fabio Finelli, Type Ia supernovae data with scalar-tensor gravity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063531 (2022).
  80. Wen Zhao, Bill S. Wright, and Baojiu Li, Constraining the time variation of Newton’s constant G with gravitational-wave standard sirens and supernovae, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2018) 052.
  81. Harry Desmond, Bhuvnesh Jain, and Jeremy Sakstein, Local resolution of the Hubble tension: The impact of screened fifth forces on the cosmic distance ladder, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043537 (2019).
  82. Bhuvnesh Jain, Vinu Vikram, and Jeremy Sakstein, Astrophysical tests of modified gravity: Constraints from distance indicators in the nearby universe, Astrophys. J. 779, 39 (2013).
  83. Philippe Brax, Santiago Casas, Harry Desmond, and Benjamin Elder, Testing screened modified gravity, Universe 8, 11 (2021).
  84. Rajeev Kumar Jain, Chris Kouvaris, and Niklas Grønlund Nielsen, White dwarf critical tests for modified gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 151103 (2016).
  85. George Alestas, Lavrentios Kazantzidis, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, w−M phantom transition at zt<0.1 as a resolution of the Hubble tension, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083517 (2021).
  86. Eleonora Di Valentino, Leandros Perivolaropoulos, and Jackson Levi Said, Special issue on modified gravity approaches to the tensions of λcdm: Goals and highlights, Universe 10, 184 (2024).
  87. L. Perivolaropoulos, Equation of state of oscillating Brans-Dicke scalar and extra dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 67, 123516 (2003).
  88. Leandros Perivolaropoulos, Crossing the phantom divide barrier with scalar tensor theories, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2005) 001.
  89. Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Lavrentios Kazantzidis, Hints of modified gravity in cosmos and in the lab?, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1942001 (2019).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 123512– Published 5 June, 2026
  • Received 12 January 2026
  • Accepted 9 April 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation