Research family
Redshift localisation of the signal
Tests of whether particular redshift intervals dominate supernova comparisons.
16 execution records · Latest record: 09 Oct 2026
Editorial grouping by research question. Each record preserves its original identifier, priors, method, result and status. Values have not been combined, and a signal in a single run is not a global detection.
Reduction in fit improvement
One run per dot, grouped by compilation and excluded range.
- DES-SN5YR
- selected run
DES-SN5YRwithout z = 0.01–0.081 run
DES-SN5YRwithout z = 0.01–0.16 runs
DES-SN5YRwithout z = 0.023–0.151 run
DES-SN5YRwithout z = 0.01–0.24 runs
DES-SN5YRwithout z = 0.01–0.34 runs
Reduction in fit improvement when the range is removed (%)
93%DES-SN5YR · without z = 0.01–0.1Open the record T-afcb5fe45fad
View the data as a table
| Compilation | Range removed | Reduction (%) | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.08 | 70 | T-e67a424b5ccf |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 59 | T-e7ffb1c11d22 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 75 | T-5ff8f1fd80a6 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 75 | T-d06585fd0e12 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 75 | T-fb9b6fc6e544 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 93 | T-afcb5fe45fad |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 93 | T-e33861adf6bf |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.023–0.15 | 75 | T-78d38345542e |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.2 | 43 | T-28784a6e0dde |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.2 | 63 | T-3e3fa4c5d2da |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.2 | 63 | T-50a63dfd1576 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.2 | 84 | T-87001adcb352 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.3 | 18 | T-fc2be79199a2 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.3 | 44 | T-0666056105a4 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.3 | 44 | T-188a0c45ae9a |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.3 | 69 | T-0fe707d2a0c0 |
16 public runs. Each dot is the key figure published for one run: the cut that most reduced the fit improvement in that configuration of data and priors. The other cuts of each run are not in the snapshot. Runs are not independent measurements, and the percentage is neither a probability nor a significance. Source: Tower public snapshot
Runs and variants
Repeat analysis: is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.3; 0.3–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.3 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 44%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The preference persisted after each range was excluded. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.3; 0.3–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.3 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 69%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.3; 0.3–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.3 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 44%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The preference persisted after each range was excluded. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.2; 0.2–0.6; 0.6–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.2 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 43%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The preference persisted after each range was excluded. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Repeat analysis: is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.2; 0.2–0.6; 0.6–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.2 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 63%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.2; 0.2–0.6; 0.6–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.2 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 63%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.7; 0.7–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 75%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.023–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.023–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 75%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.2; 0.2–0.6; 0.6–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.2 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 84%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.4; 0.4–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 93%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Repeat analysis: is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.4; 0.4–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 75%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.7; 0.7–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 93%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.08; 0.08–0.15; 0.15–0.3; 0.3–0.6; 0.6–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.08 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 70%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.4; 0.4–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 59%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The preference persisted after each range was excluded. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.4; 0.4–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 75%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The ranges had unequal influence, without establishing exclusive dependence on any one of them. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.
Is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR concentrated in one of the ranges z = 0.01–0.3; 0.3–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.3 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 18%, the largest reduction among the exclusions tested. The preference persisted after each range was excluded. The conclusion applies to the compilations, ranges and assumptions examined.