Research family
Dark energy: redshift-bin exclusion
Sensitivity of evolving-dark-energy preferences to the exclusion of redshift intervals.
34 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
- Union3
- selected run
DES-SN5YRwithout z = 0.01–0.17 runs
DES-SN5YRwithout z = 0.01–0.1517 runs
Union3without z = 0.01–0.157 runs
Union3without z = 0.1–0.33 runs
Reduction in fit improvement when the range is removed (%)
95%DES-SN5YR · without z = 0.01–0.15Open the record T-6630bd2ec70b
View the data as a table
| Compilation | Range removed | Reduction (%) | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 59 | T-acf9f6789f6a |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 91 | T-ce8e413902fb |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 91 | T-e6b06a801122 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 93 | T-04a0ed4d9d28 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 93 | T-b97d826bd09f |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 93 | T-cd51b90ff68b |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.1 | 93 | T-cf7844375210 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 58 | T-260500679d60 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 58 | T-321b843a0e5c |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 58 | T-423f050911c9 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 58 | T-df998f604c97 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 58 | T-ed2ce44de389 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 75 | T-363971e6e7a9 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 75 | T-daadb81fcf35 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 92 | T-5f0f73082b99 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 92 | T-69658e6481b4 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 94 | T-05ae703af393 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 94 | T-4f3a81c57369 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 94 | T-5f5380992840 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 94 | T-ec2705915411 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 94 | T-f15b202924b6 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 95 | T-6630bd2ec70b |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 95 | T-d3c37bcfa041 |
| DES-SN5YR | z = 0.01–0.15 | 95 | T-d824203da16c |
| Union3 | z = 0.01–0.15 | 33 | T-63817dc77958 |
| Union3 | z = 0.01–0.15 | 33 | T-c1650d8fd93c |
| Union3 | z = 0.01–0.15 | 42 | T-c55a31fdb4c9 |
| Union3 | z = 0.01–0.15 | 53 | T-f079e23f2559 |
| Union3 | z = 0.01–0.15 | 54 | T-3e9ad497d065 |
| Union3 | z = 0.01–0.15 | 54 | T-c8b48f8f5e39 |
| Union3 | z = 0.01–0.15 | 54 | T-cbe083892a0c |
| Union3 | z = 0.1–0.3 | 49 | T-5f1fd8c35732 |
| Union3 | z = 0.1–0.3 | 50 | T-3d4bc1b7fd17 |
| Union3 | z = 0.1–0.3 | 52 | T-6ff8a28ad5b0 |
34 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
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 to 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 ± 0.03?
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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 94%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 58%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 58%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 to 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 ± 0.03?
Excluding z = 0.1–0.3 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 50%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 54%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 58%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 94%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 92%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.7; 0.7–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.1–0.3 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 49%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 94%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 33%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.03?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 95%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 92%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.7; 0.7–2.3 are excluded one at a time?
Excluding z = 0.1–0.3 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 52%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR to the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.7; 0.7–2.3, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 to 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 ± 0.03?
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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 33%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 42%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 54%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 54%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR to 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 ± 0.03?
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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.7; 0.7–2.3 are excluded one at a time?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 91%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR to 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.03?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 95%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.03?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 95%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.007?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 58%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.1; 0.1–0.3; 0.3–0.7; 0.7–2.3 are excluded one at a time?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.1 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 91%, 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.
Does the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 persist when the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3 are excluded one at a time, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 94%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+, DES-SN5YR and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.33 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 58%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and Union3 to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.315 ± 0.03?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from Union3 reduced the fit improvement by about 53%, 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.
How sensitive is the preference for evolving dark energy in Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR to the ranges z = 0.01–0.15; 0.15–0.5; 0.5–2.3, with the prior Ωm = 0.3 ± 0.01?
Excluding z = 0.01–0.15 from DES-SN5YR reduced the fit improvement by about 94%, 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.