Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

Saul Perlmutter, The Supernova Cosmology Project · The Astrophysical Journal / arXiv · 1999 · astronomy · 10.1086/307221 · record perlmutter1999-omega-lambda
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is 'existence' rather than 'prediction' because the central assertion is that a positive cosmological constant is present in the data, not a forecast. Replication status is 'replicated' on the paper's own words: it reports Riess et al. (1998) as an independent cross-check reaching a very similar confidence region, while also noting the two low-redshift datasets are not independent. Many candidate sentences (including the abstract's headline numbers and the Goobar & Perlmutter 1995 attribution) had to be rejected as evidence because the PDF extraction encodes the Omega symbol as U+2126 and scatters superscripts and error bars mid-sentence, so a character-exact quote could not be reproduced safely; the quotes used were all substring-verified against the article text. The extracted text is truncated in Section 6.2 (it ends mid-sentence at 'cf. Guerra & Daly 1998, and'), so no reference list or later comparison material was available. 2026-08-14, 2026-08-16 and 2026-08-17 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 22 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - claim_relations[1].evidence, claim_relations[2].evidence, claim_relations[3].evidence, content_tags.definitions[0].evidence, content_tags.findings[0].evidence, content_tags.quantities[1].evidence, content_tags.quantities[2].evidence, content_tags.statistics[0].evidence, content_tags.statistics[1].evidence, content_tags.statistics[2].evidence, content_tags.statistics[3].evidence, content_tags.statistics[4].evidence, content_tags.statistics[5].evidence, content_tags.statistics[6].evidence, content_tags.statistics[7].evidence, content_tags.statistics[8].evidence, content_tags.statistics[9].evidence, limitations[0].evidence, limitations[1].evidence, limitations[2].evidence, limitations[3].evidence, limitations[4].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.

The quality of the text these quotes were cut from. symbol-font-not-extractable: 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph-index markers remain in a staged text of 106,656 characters, where the PDF's embedded font had no ToUnicode map. THE QUOTES ON THIS RECORD ARE THE PAPER'S AND THE STAGED COPY IS THE DAMAGED ONE - which is the opposite of the usual case and is why it went unnoticed: 19 of its 67 live quotes are not exact substrings of this text, and 16 of those 19 were located in it by aligning the quote's WORD SEQUENCE under exactly this damage - the words are there, the characters inside them are not. Not repaired in place: editing the staged text moves every offset after the edit and re-hashes every anchor on the record. Measured at 113aae60fefc3eb1, re-measured unchanged at 54b63482778ddf56.

Some quotes on this page contain (cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 18 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.

Some words in these quotes contain the wrong character. The PDF this text was extracted from substituted 2 characters inside a word — a currency sign or a stray accent where a letter pair belongs, as in signi¢cantly for significantly, or a single ligature glyph, as in conﬁdence. They are valid characters in the wrong place, so they survive every encoding check. The quotes keep them for the same reason as above, and a search of this page will not find the affected words.

11 quotes on this page break a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated those words at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.

22 quotes on this page were cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. They are verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
sample-size 5 fields · standard-deviation 3 fields · statistical-significance 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 10 concept tags on this paper, 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

dark energy cosmological constant Type Ia supernova accelerating universe general relativity width-luminosity relation K-correction peculiar velocities systematic uncertainty stretch factor A CATEGORY IS DEFINED AS THE COMPLEMENT OF ANOTHER, AND THE DEFINITION'S SCOPE IS DECLARED IN THE SAME SENTENCE: Quotation withheld `Systematic` is not given positive content at all - it is whatever `statistical` left out - and the qualifier admits the boundary is local to this analysis AN ORDINARY OBJECT IS RECRUITED AS A MEASURING INSTRUMENT, AND THE SUGGESTION IS DATED: since the earliest studies IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED that these luminous events MIGHT BE USED AS STANDARD CANDLES for cosmological measurements, with a 1938 attribution. The class of object becomes a ruler by proposal, and the proposal has an author and a year THE MEASUREMENT'S CONCLUSION IS CLAIMED TO SURVIVE THE STANDARDISATION CHOICE ITSELF: Quotation withheld. The step that makes the objects comparable is treated as an assumption the result must survive rather than as a given EVERY PEAK MAGNITUDE IS PUT THROUGH ONE RELATION BEFORE COMPARISON, AND THE RELATION IS NAMED: Quotation withheld. The objects are not comparable as found; they are made comparable by a stated transformation RIVAL EXPLANATIONS ARE CONSTRAINED WHERE POSSIBLE RATHER THAN DISMISSED, AND THE HEDGE IS IN THE SENTENCE: Quotation withheld The alternatives are named as hypothetical and the constraint as partial, both in six words THE REJECTED ALTERNATIVE IS DESCRIBED AS MORE REALISTIC THAN THE ONE CHOSEN: on a different assumption about the extinction distribution, one COULD CHOOSE A LESS CONSERVATIVE BUT MORE REALISTIC narrow prior probability distribution. The paper says outright that the option it did not take is the more realistic one - conservatism is being bought, and the price is named A BIAS IS ELIMINATED BY PERMITTING A PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE VALUE: any such small bias CAN BE ELIMINATED by ASSUMING NO BAYESIAN PRIOR on the host-galaxy extinction, ALLOWING EXTINCTION CORRECTIONS TO BE NEGATIVE for supernovae measured to be bluer than the zero-extinction case. Dust cannot brighten a source; the estimator is allowed to say it did, so that the estimator stops leaning AN ERROR'S RELEVANCE IS ASSESSED AGAINST THE SPECIFIC QUESTION RATHER THAN IN GENERAL: a parenthesis notes that IN THIS DIRECTION ANY SYSTEMATIC ERROR IS LESS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION of the existence of a cosmological constant. The same uncertainty matters more or less depending on which claim is being defended, and the asymmetry is stated rather than hidden ONE UNCERTAINTY IS BOOKED AS A SEPARATE ANALYSIS RATHER THAN AS A CONTRIBUTION, AND THE CHOICE IS DECLARED: the effect of small-scale clumping of mass is treated AS A SEPARATE ANALYSIS CASE RATHER THAN AS A CONTRIBUTING SYSTEMATIC ERROR in the primary analysis - while THE TOTAL SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTY APPLIES TO THIS ANALYSIS AS WELL. Where an uncertainty is entered in the books is a decision, and it is written down supernovae redshift cosmological Omega Lambda universe expansion accelerating density cosmological-constant energy density magnitude-redshift data Bayesian chi-square correlation correlation coefficient degrees-of-freedom degree of freedom mean mean of median sample-size sample size standard-deviation standard deviation statistical-significance statistical significance observational-study

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
unrecordable relation	`unhoused_relations`	a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1086/307221. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 4 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 5 · content_tags 3 · limitations 9 · mechanisms 9 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3 · unhoused_relations 1

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:209). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	cosmological parameters from type Ia supernova magnitude-redshift relation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	observational-study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: observational-study	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A CATEGORY IS DEFINED AS THE COMPLEMENT OF ANOTHER, AND THE DEFINITION'S SCOPE IS DECLARED IN THE SAME SENTENCE: Quotation withheld `Systematic` is not given positive content at all - it is whatever `statistical` left out - and the qualifier admits the boundary is local to this analysis	`mechanisms[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: AN ORDINARY OBJECT IS RECRUITED AS A MEASURING INSTRUMENT, AND THE SUGGESTION IS DATED: since the earliest studies IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED that these luminous events MIGHT BE USED AS STANDARD CANDLES for cosmological measurements, with a 1938 attribution. The class of object becomes a ruler by proposal, and the proposal has an author and a year	`mechanisms[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: THE MEASUREMENT'S CONCLUSION IS CLAIMED TO SURVIVE THE STANDARDISATION CHOICE ITSELF: Quotation withheld. The step that makes the objects comparable is treated as an assumption the result must survive rather than as a given	`mechanisms[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: EVERY PEAK MAGNITUDE IS PUT THROUGH ONE RELATION BEFORE COMPARISON, AND THE RELATION IS NAMED: Quotation withheld. The objects are not comparable as found; they are made comparable by a stated transformation	`mechanisms[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: RIVAL EXPLANATIONS ARE CONSTRAINED WHERE POSSIBLE RATHER THAN DISMISSED, AND THE HEDGE IS IN THE SENTENCE: Quotation withheld The alternatives are named as hypothetical and the constraint as partial, both in six words	`mechanisms[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: The span contains 'dataˇs' for 'data's' - the apostrophe rendered as a caron by the extraction. This file's ligature handling is broken throughout: 'fi' becomes '(cid:209)' or an em dash, so 'flat' is '(cid:209)at' and 'identified' is 'identi—ed'. Measured at 18% of sentences, which is why the slicer here refuses any span containing an em dash. also in: THE REJECTED ALTERNATIVE IS DESCRIBED AS MORE REALISTIC THAN THE ONE CHOSEN: on a different assumption about the extinction distribution, one COULD CHOOSE A LESS CONSERVATIVE BUT MORE REALISTIC narrow prior probability distribution. The paper says outright that the option it did not take is the more realistic one - conservatism is being bought, and the price is named	`mechanisms[5]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: RE-SLICED. My first end key was "...bluer than the zero-extinction case." - and the file says "bluer than the zero-extinction E(B[V ) value." I had taken the key from a TRUNCATED PRINT (cut at 'zero-extinc') and then typed the word 'case' to finish it. Second time today I used a truncated display as a key - the first was bengio2021 - and the cut-word guard refused both. The span now ends at the clause that carries the claim. also in: A BIAS IS ELIMINATED BY PERMITTING A PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE VALUE: any such small bias CAN BE ELIMINATED by ASSUMING NO BAYESIAN PRIOR on the host-galaxy extinction, ALLOWING EXTINCTION CORRECTIONS TO BE NEGATIVE for supernovae measured to be bluer than the zero-extinction case. Dust cannot brighten a source; the estimator is allowed to say it did, so that the estimator stops leaning	`mechanisms[6]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: RE-SLICED to include the OPENING bracket. Starting at "In this direction" made the span close a parenthesis it never opened, which is exactly what our check exists to catch - and it caught it here, on my own draft. also in: AN ERROR'S RELEVANCE IS ASSESSED AGAINST THE SPECIFIC QUESTION RATHER THAN IN GENERAL: a parenthesis notes that IN THIS DIRECTION ANY SYSTEMATIC ERROR IS LESS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION of the existence of a cosmological constant. The same uncertainty matters more or less depending on which claim is being defended, and the asymmetry is stated rather than hidden	`mechanisms[7]`	0.85	the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: The span begins mid-sentence at "due to small-scale clumping" because what precedes it in the staged text is interleaved mathematics - `/2 [ ) " 4 ) H M 0 0 0 due to small-scale clumping` - so the quantity the clumping affects is unrecoverable from a contiguous span. The tag does not name it. also in: ONE UNCERTAINTY IS BOOKED AS A SEPARATE ANALYSIS RATHER THAN AS A CONTRIBUTION, AND THE CHOICE IS DECLARED: the effect of small-scale clumping of mass is treated AS A SEPARATE ANALYSIS CASE RATHER THAN AS A CONTRIBUTING SYSTEMATIC ERROR in the primary analysis - while THE TOTAL SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTY APPLIES TO THIS ANALYSIS AS WELL. Where an uncertainty is entered in the books is a decision, and it is written down	`mechanisms[8]`	0.95	the tagger's words
limitations	Host-galaxy morphology could only be approximated as a cross-check, because high-resolution images were unavailable for most of the high-redshift sample. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - the morphology cross-check is approximate	`limitations[5]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Hypothetical systematics such as evolving gray dust and supernova evolution are bounded and tested but remain hard to quantify, and are excluded from the identified systematic error budget. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: 2026-08-16: FAILED GLYPH INSIDE THIS QUOTE. (cid:134) is the ff LIGATURE, which this extraction could not map: e(cid:134)ects -> effects. It occurs in BOTH quote fields on this row. No word is ambiguous - the ligature is purely typographic and the sentence reads normally once it is restored. The quote is an exact substring of the staged file; the file is incomplete here, not the tag. · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - bounded and tested, still difficult to quantify · for which use evidence status note: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:134). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job.	`limitations[6]`	0.9	the tagger's words
limitations	The well-studied SN Ia sample is still small, especially at low redshift, so the authors do not consider all loopholes closed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: 2026-08-16: FAILED GLYPH INSIDE THIS QUOTE. (cid:134) is the ff LIGATURE, which this extraction could not map: di(cid:134)erent -> different. It occurs in BOTH quote fields on this row. No word is ambiguous - the ligature is purely typographic and the sentence reads normally once it is restored. The quote is an exact substring of the staged file; the file is incomplete here, not the tag. · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[3] - the low-redshift sample is small · for which use evidence status note: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:134). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job.	`limitations[7]`	0.9	the tagger's words
limitations	A suitably contrived smooth gray-dust distribution could escape the tests the paper applies. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the dust tests specifically, against a scenario the authors construct themselves: SOME CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED SMOOTH DISTRIBUTION OF LARGE-GRAIN SIZED GRAY DUST THAT EVOLVES SIMILARLY FOR ELLIPTICAL AND SPIRAL GALAXIES COULD EVADE OUR tests	`limitations[8]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The dominant remaining measurement uncertainty comes from the low-redshift supernova sample rather than the new high-redshift data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the error budget: the dominant remaining measurement uncertainty comes from the low-redshift sample, not from the new high-redshift data	`limitations[9]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The quantity compared across redshift is not an observed brightness but one standardised by a fitted relation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the magnitudes compared here between low and high redshift: all supernova peak magnitudes are standardized using a light-curve width-luminosity relation rather than used as measured	`limitations[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The reported uncertainty is an itemised budget of separately chosen allowances. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the error bars quoted on these magnitudes: they combine an assumed 0.17 mag intrinsic luminosity dispersion, 10% of the Galactic extinction correction, 0.01 mag for K-corrections and an allowance for peculiar velocities	`limitations[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	A separate systematic allowance for the colour correction is set by the authors. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the systematic error budget reported here: the authors take an overall systematic uncertainty of 0.02 mag for the K-correction, given small additional uncertainties in supernova colours	`limitations[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Comparability between the two samples is a design decision, not a property of the data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the comparison between low- and high-redshift samples: the authors state the analysis procedures were designed to be as similar as possible for the two data sets	`limitations[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concepts	width-luminosity relation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: width-luminosity relation	`concepts[5]`		the paper's words
concepts	K-correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: K-correction	`concepts[6]`		the paper's words
concepts	peculiar velocities Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: peculiar velocities	`concepts[7]`		the paper's words
concepts	systematic uncertainty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic uncertainty	`concepts[8]`		the paper's words
concepts	stretch factor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stretch factor	`concepts[9]`		the paper's words
unhoused_relations	a less conservative but more realistic narrow prior probability distribution → the conservative extinction prior this paper KEEPS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE SAME ADJECTIVE, THE SAME PHYSICAL QUANTITY, THE SAME YEAR, OPPOSITE DECISIONS - and no type in the vocabulary can express it. This paper DECLINES the option it calls more realistic. riess1998-accelerating-universe calls its own chosen prior “a more realistic a priori probability distribution for extinction” and ADOPTS it. 'contradicts' would be FALSE: neither team contradicts the other, they weigh the same consideration about the extinction prior and rule differently, and each calls its own reasoning 'more realistic'. All eight edge types assert that a relation HOLDS between two concepts; not one can say that two papers apply one word to opposite choices. Recorded here, per record, with each row quoting only its own paper - the cross-paper half is this paraphrase, checkable by opening riess1998-accelerating-universe. This is a NEW use of unhoused-relations: all 67 existing rows describe a relation inside one paper, and this is the first pair that spans two. second case;	`unhoused_relations[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	the peak magnitude - AS A STANDARDISED QUANTITY, NOT AN OBSERVATION: every supernova's peak brightness is corrected through a light-curve width-luminosity relation before it enters the comparison, so the number being differenced across redshift is the output of a fitted model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the uncertainty - AS AN ASSEMBLED BUDGET: a 0.17 mag intrinsic dispersion, a tenth of the Galactic extinction correction, 0.01 mag for K-corrections and a peculiar-velocity allowance, each chosen and then propagated, so the error bar is a construction with named parts rather than a measured spread Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the conclusion's robustness - STATED WITHOUT THE STANDARDISATION TOO: the authors report that the conclusions hold whether or not the width-luminosity relation is used, which is the check that keeps the result from being an artefact of the correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → a cosmology with zero cosmological constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. Update, 15 September 2026: CLEARED evidence status='quote-not-in-current-staged-text' - the quote now locates in the current staged text, so the condition the marker recorded no longer holds.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Perlmutter et al. (1997e), referred to in the paper as P97 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Goobar & Perlmutter (1995) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[5]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	replicates → Riess et al. (1998) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[6]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	K-correction —part-of→ systematic uncertainty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span gives a systematic uncertainty FOR the K-correction; part-of is loose. also in: K-correction · systematic uncertainty	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	42 — high-redshift SNe Ia analysed (Supernova Cosmology Project) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	magnitude-redshift data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: magnitude-redshift data	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	median Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

limitations[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified., 2026-08-15: the quote IS present, verbatim once whitespace is normalised, in the web page we fetched. The staged text this flag refers to is a lossier extraction of the same paper, so the tag is UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE FILE THE VERIFIER READS rather than unverifiable. Re-staging would move every offset and hash on the record and is a staging decision, not a tagging one. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
limitations[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
limitations[2] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
limitations[3] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
limitations[4] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified., 2026-08-15: the quote IS present, verbatim once whitespace is normalised, in the web page we fetched. The staged text this flag refers to is a lossier extraction of the same paper, so the tag is UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE FILE THE VERIFIER READS rather than unverifiable. Re-staging would move every offset and hash on the record and is a staging decision, not a tagging one. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
claim_relations[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified., 2026-08-15: the quote IS present, verbatim once whitespace is normalised, in the web page we fetched. The staged text this flag refers to is a lossier extraction of the same paper, so the tag is UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE FILE THE VERIFIER READS rather than unverifiable. Re-staging would move every offset and hash on the record and is a staging decision, not a tagging one. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
claim_relations[2] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified., 2026-08-15: the quote IS present, verbatim once whitespace is normalised, in the web page we fetched. The staged text this flag refers to is a lossier extraction of the same paper, so the tag is UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE FILE THE VERIFIER READS rather than unverifiable. Re-staging would move every offset and hash on the record and is a staging decision, not a tagging one. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
claim_relations[3] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: tagged against an earlier extraction of this paper; the staged file has since changed. The claim may still be sound - the QUOTE is unanchorable. Not deleted, not repaired, not verified. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries 246 '(cid:NNN)' glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics.
content_tags.quantities[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.quantities[2] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.findings[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: declared-ellipsis - An elided quote: the quote marks its cuts with an ellipsis, and each of its 3 pieces is in our copy of the paper, some differing slightly from our copy in letters or notation ('the cosmological constant is non-zero an...'; 'a confi- dence region indicating an acce...'; 'Recent independent work of Riess et al. ...'). The joined string is in no copy.
content_tags.definitions[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: marked quote-not-in-current-staged-text - today's merge gate would REFUSE this quote: Paper.locate() does not find it in the current staged text. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: quote-differs-from-our-copy - The quote IS in our copy of this paper - the passage is there, in one place - and is not an exact substring of it. THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE QUOTE, not in the body: the quote has ', ΩΛ' where our copy has ''. This body carries 246 “(cid:NNN)” glyph ids, 119 lost fi/fl ligatures, 30 detached diacritics. Nothing is repaired in place: editing either side moves every offset after it and re-hashes every anchor on the record.
content_tags.statistics[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.statistics[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.statistics[2] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.statistics[3] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.statistics[4] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.statistics[7] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.statistics[8] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.
content_tags.statistics[9] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.