Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae — TEI-tagged view

Saul Perlmutter, The Supernova Cosmology Project · 1999 · astronomy · doi:10.1086/307221 · full text at the source · TEI xml · tagged edition · index · concepts · authors
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.
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, whether or not the words occur in the text below — a number is how many papers in the corpus carry that tag; a tag with no number is unique to this paper
dark energy3 cosmological constant2 Type Ia supernova accelerating universe general relativity4 width-luminosity relation K-correction2 peculiar velocities systematic uncertainty stretch factor observational-study83

Our tag layer for this paper

Cross-disciplinary analysis
content-tags & facets: phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text
phenomenoncosmological parameters from type Ia supernova magnitude-redshift relation— “The primary goal of the project is the determination of the cosmological parameters of the universe using the magnitude-redshift relation of type Ia supernovae.”
claim-typeexistence— “Third, even if the universe is not (cid:209)at, the con—dence regions of Figure 7 suggest that the cosmological constant is a signi—cant constituent of the energy density of the universe.”
method — evidence— “The combined low- and high-redshift supernova data sets of Figure 1 are —tted to the Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) magnitude-redshift relation, expressed as in P97 :”
mechanismA CATEGORY IS DEFINED AS THE COMPLEMENT OF ANOTHER, AND THE DEFINITION'S SCOPE IS DECLARED IN THE SAME SENTENCE: ALL UNCERTAINTIES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATISTICAL ERROR BUDGET ARE TREATED AS SYSTEMATIC ERRORS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PAPER. `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— “All uncertainties that are not included in the statistical error budget are treated as systematic errors for the purposes of this paper.”mechanisms[0]
mechanismAN 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— “Since the earliest studies of supernovae, it has been suggested that these luminous events might be used as standard candles for cosmological measurements (Baade 1938).”mechanisms[1]
mechanismTHE MEASUREMENT'S CONCLUSION IS CLAIMED TO SURVIVE THE STANDARDISATION CHOICE ITSELF: the conclusions are ALSO ROBUST WHETHER OR NOT a width-luminosity relation is used to STANDARDIZE the supernova peak magnitudes. The step that makes the objects comparable is treated as an assumption the result must survive rather than as a given— “The conclusions are also robust whether or not a width-luminosity relation is used to standardize the supernova peak magnitudes.”mechanisms[2]
mechanismEVERY PEAK MAGNITUDE IS PUT THROUGH ONE RELATION BEFORE COMPARISON, AND THE RELATION IS NAMED: all supernova peak magnitudes ARE STANDARDIZED USING A SN Ia LIGHT-CURVE WIDTH-LUMINOSITY RELATION. The objects are not comparable as found; they are made comparable by a stated transformation— “All supernova peak magnitudes are standardized using a SN Ia light-curve width-luminosity relation.”mechanisms[3]
mechanismRIVAL EXPLANATIONS ARE CONSTRAINED WHERE POSSIBLE RATHER THAN DISMISSED, AND THE HEDGE IS IN THE SENTENCE: we DISCUSS AND CONSTRAIN, WHERE POSSIBLE, HYPOTHETICAL ALTERNATIVES to a cosmological constant. The alternatives are named as hypothetical and the constraint as partial, both in six words— “We discuss and constrain, where possible, hypothetical alternatives to a cosmological constant.”mechanisms[4]
mechanismTHE 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— “If one alternatively assumes that the current dataˇs extinction distribution is quite as narrow as that of previously observed supernovae, one can choose a less conservative but more realistic narrow prior probability distribution”mechanisms[5]
mechanismA 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— “We can eliminate any such small bias of this method by assuming no Bayesian prior on the host-galaxy extinction, allowing extinction corrections to be negative”mechanisms[6]
mechanismAN 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— “(In this direction any systematic error is less relevant to the question of the existence of a cosmological constant.)”mechanisms[7]
mechanismONE 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— “due to small-scale clumping of mass as a separate analysis case rather than as a contributing systematic error in our primary analysis ; the total systematic uncertainty applies to this analysis as well.”mechanisms[8]
contradicts a cosmology with zero cosmological constant— “the data indicate that the cosmological constant is nonzero and positive”claim_relations[0]
replicates Riess et al. (1998)— “To first order, the Riess et al. result provides an important independent cross-check for all three conclusions discussed above, since it was based on a separate high-redshift supernova search and analysis chain (see Schmidt et al. 1998).” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[1]
extends Perlmutter et al. (1997e), referred to as P97— “A comparison with the first supernova measurement of the cosmological parameters in P97 highlights an important aspect of the current measurement.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[2]
extends Perlmutter et al. (1998c)— “The current confidence region of Figure 7 has changed very little from the corresponding confidence region of Perlmutter et al. (1998c), but since most of the uncertainties in the lowredshift dataset are now included in the statistical error, the remaining systematic error is now a small part of the error budget.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[3]
extends Perlmutter et al. (1997e), referred to in the paper as P97— “A comparison with the —rst supernova measurement of the cosmological parameters in P97 highlights an important aspect of the current measurement.”claim_relations[4]
builds-on Goobar & Perlmutter (1995)— “In particular, Goobar & Perlmutter (1995) showed the possibility of separating the relative contributions of the and the cosmological constant, ", to mass density, changes in the expansion rate by studying supernovae at a range of redshifts.”claim_relations[5]
replicates Riess et al. (1998)— “The more recent analyses of 16 high-redshift supernovae by Riess et al. (1998) also show a very similar con- —dence region.”claim_relations[6]
sensethe 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— “All supernova peak magnitudes are standardized using a SN Ia light-curve width-luminosity relation”senses[0]
sensethe 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— “Col. (9) : Stretch-luminosity corrected B-band peak magnitude. Col. (10) : Total uncertainty in corrected B-band peak magnitude. This includes uncertainties due to the intrinsic luminosity dispersion of SNe Ia of 0.17 mag, 10% of the Galactic extinction correction, 0.01 mag for K-corrections, 300 km s~1 to account for peculiar velocities, in…senses[1]
sensethe 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— “The conclusions are also robust whether or not a width-luminosity relation is used to standardize the supernova peak magnitudes”senses[2]
evidence status notea cosmology with zero cosmological constant — 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.— “the data indicate that the cosmological constant is nonzero and positive”claim_relations[0]
evidence statusRiess et al. (1998) — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “To first order, the Riess et al. result provides an important independent cross-check for all three conclusions discussed above, since it was based on a separate high-redshift supernova search and analysis chain (see Schmidt et al. 1998).” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[1]
evidence status noteRiess et al. (1998) — 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.— “To first order, the Riess et al. result provides an important independent cross-check for all three conclusions discussed above, since it was based on a separate high-redshift supernova search and analysis chain (see Schmidt et al. 1998).” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[1]
not machine-vouchedRiess et al. (1998) — 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.— “To first order, the Riess et al. result provides an important independent cross-check for all three conclusions discussed above, since it was based on a separate high-redshift supernova search and analysis chain (see Schmidt et al. 1998).” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[1]
evidence statusPerlmutter et al. (1997e), referred to as P97 — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “A comparison with the first supernova measurement of the cosmological parameters in P97 highlights an important aspect of the current measurement.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[2]
evidence status notePerlmutter et al. (1997e), referred to as P97 — 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.— “A comparison with the first supernova measurement of the cosmological parameters in P97 highlights an important aspect of the current measurement.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[2]
not machine-vouchedPerlmutter et al. (1997e), referred to as P97 — 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.— “A comparison with the first supernova measurement of the cosmological parameters in P97 highlights an important aspect of the current measurement.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[2]
evidence statusPerlmutter et al. (1998c) — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “The current confidence region of Figure 7 has changed very little from the corresponding confidence region of Perlmutter et al. (1998c), but since most of the uncertainties in the lowredshift dataset are now included in the statistical error, the remaining systematic error is now a small part of the error budget.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[3]
evidence status notePerlmutter et al. (1998c) — 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.— “The current confidence region of Figure 7 has changed very little from the corresponding confidence region of Perlmutter et al. (1998c), but since most of the uncertainties in the lowredshift dataset are now included in the statistical error, the remaining systematic error is now a small part of the error budget.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[3]
not machine-vouchedPerlmutter et al. (1998c) — 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.— “The current confidence region of Figure 7 has changed very little from the corresponding confidence region of Perlmutter et al. (1998c), but since most of the uncertainties in the lowredshift dataset are now included in the statistical error, the remaining systematic error is now a small part of the error budget.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]claim_relations[3]
auditK-correction —part-of→ systematic uncertainty — 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.— “Given small additional uncertainties in the colors of supernovae, we take an overall systematic uncertainty of 0.02 mag for the K-correction”concept_edges[0]
evidence statuslimitation — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “including the identified systematic uncertainties” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[0]
evidence status notelimitation — 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.— “including the identified systematic uncertainties” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[0]
not machine-vouchedlimitation — 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.— “including the identified systematic uncertainties” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[0]
evidence statuslimitation — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “Without high-resolution host-galaxy images for most of our high-redshift sample, we currently can only approximate this test for the smaller number of supernovae for which the host-galaxy spectrum gives a strong indication of galaxy classification.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[1]
evidence status notelimitation — 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.— “Without high-resolution host-galaxy images for most of our high-redshift sample, we currently can only approximate this test for the smaller number of supernovae for which the host-galaxy spectrum gives a strong indication of galaxy classification.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[1]
not machine-vouchedlimitation — 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.— “Without high-resolution host-galaxy images for most of our high-redshift sample, we currently can only approximate this test for the smaller number of supernovae for which the host-galaxy spectrum gives a strong indication of galaxy classification.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[1]
evidence statuslimitation — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “We have presented bounds and tests for these effects which give preliminary indications that they are not large sources of uncertainty, but at this time they remain difficult to quantify, at least partly because the proposed physical processes and entities that might cause the effects are not completely defined.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[2]
evidence status notelimitation — 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.— “We have presented bounds and tests for these effects which give preliminary indications that they are not large sources of uncertainty, but at this time they remain difficult to quantify, at least partly because the proposed physical processes and entities that might cause the effects are not completely defined.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[2]
not machine-vouchedlimitation — 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.— “We have presented bounds and tests for these effects which give preliminary indications that they are not large sources of uncertainty, but at this time they remain difficult to quantify, at least partly because the proposed physical processes and entities that might cause the effects are not completely defined.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[2]
evidence statuslimitation — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “Also, the full dataset of well-studied SNe Ia is still relatively small, particularly at low redshifts, and we would like to see a more extensive study of SNe Ia in many different host-galaxy environments before we consider all plausible loopholes (including those listed in Table 4B) to be closed.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[3]
evidence status notelimitation — 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.— “Also, the full dataset of well-studied SNe Ia is still relatively small, particularly at low redshifts, and we would like to see a more extensive study of SNe Ia in many different host-galaxy environments before we consider all plausible loopholes (including those listed in Table 4B) to be closed.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[3]
not machine-vouchedlimitation — 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.— “Also, the full dataset of well-studied SNe Ia is still relatively small, particularly at low redshifts, and we would like to see a more extensive study of SNe Ia in many different host-galaxy environments before we consider all plausible loopholes (including those listed in Table 4B) to be closed.” [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[3]
evidence statuslimitation — quote-not-in-current-staged-text— “We cannot make an exactly parallel estimate of Malmquist bias for the low-redshift-supernova sample, because we do not have information for the… [UNVERIFIED AGAINST THE STAGED TEXT]limitations[4]
evidence status notelimitation — 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.limitations[4]
not machine-vouchedlimitation — 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]
for which uselimitation — the same scope as limitations[1] - the morphology cross-check is approximatelimitations[5]
evidence status notelimitation — 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.limitations[6]
for which uselimitation — the same scope as limitations[2] - bounded and tested, still difficult to quantifylimitations[6]
for which use evidence status notelimitation — 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]
evidence status notelimitation — 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.limitations[7]
for which uselimitation — the same scope as limitations[3] - the low-redshift sample is small
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[7]
for which use evidence status notelimitation — 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]
for which uselimitation — 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
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[8]
for which uselimitation — the error budget: the dominant remaining measurement uncertainty comes from the low-redshift sample, not from the new high-redshift data
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[9]
for which uselimitation — 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
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[10]
for which uselimitation — 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
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[11]
for which uselimitation — 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
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[12]
for which uselimitation — 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
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[13]
evidence status notemechanism — 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.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
mechanisms[5]
evidence status notemechanism — 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.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
mechanisms[6]
evidence status notemechanism — 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.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
mechanisms[7]
evidence status notemechanism — 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.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
mechanisms[8]
replicationuntested
evidence status noteclaim-type — 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.
no type for thisa less conservative but more realistic narrow prior probability distribution → the conservative extinction prior this paper KEEPS — 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;
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
unhoused_relations[0]
limitationthe result includes identified systematic uncertainties
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[0]
limitationHost-galaxy classification could only be approximated for a subset, because high-resolution host images are missing for most high-redshift supernovae, so the evolution cross-check is incomplete.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[1]
limitationSome hypothetical error sources (grey dust, SN Ia evolution shifting the width-luminosity zero point) are bounded only preliminarily and remain hard to quantify, so they are excluded from the systematic error budget.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[2]
limitationThe well-studied SN Ia dataset, especially at low redshift, is still small, so not all loopholes can yet be considered closed.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[3]
limitationMalmquist bias for the low-redshift comparison sample cannot be estimated in the same way as for the high-redshift sample, because the required detection-limit information is unavailable for the Calan/Tololo dataset.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[4]
limitationHost-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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[5]
limitationHypothetical 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[6]
limitationThe well-studied SN Ia sample is still small, especially at low redshift, so the authors do not consider all loopholes closed.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[7]
limitationA suitably contrived smooth gray-dust distribution could escape the tests the paper applies.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[8]
limitationThe dominant remaining measurement uncertainty comes from the low-redshift supernova sample rather than the new high-redshift data.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[9]
limitationThe quantity compared across redshift is not an observed brightness but one standardised by a fitted relation.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[10]
limitationThe reported uncertainty is an itemised budget of separately chosen allowances.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[11]
limitationA separate systematic allowance for the colour correction is set by the authors.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[12]
limitationComparability between the two samples is a design decision, not a property of the data.
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
limitations[13]
Content tags
content-observations: finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text
findingThe cosmological constant is non-zero and positive at 99% confidence, indicating an accelerating universe, consistent with the independent work of Riess et al. (1998).
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.findings[0]
not machine-vouchedfinding — 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.findings[0]
quantity42 Type Ia supernovae — high-redshift SNe Ia analysed (Supernova Cosmology Project)
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.quantities[0]
evidence status notequantity — 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]
quantityΩM ≈ 0.28 — best-fit mass density of the universe (flat cosmology)
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.quantities[1]
not machine-vouchedquantity — 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[1]
quantityP(Λ > 0) = 99% — confidence that the cosmological constant is non-zero and positive
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.quantities[2]
not machine-vouchedquantity — 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]
variablemagnitude-redshift data (independent)
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.variables[0]
definitioncosmological-constant energy density
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.definitions[0]
evidence status notedefinition — 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.content_tags.definitions[0]
not machine-voucheddefinition — 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.definitions[0]
key-termssupernovae, redshift, cosmological, Omega, Lambda, universe, expansion, accelerating, density
Concepts
terms this paper carries, each with the sentence it was cut from — the layer that joins one paper to another. Terms with no quote yet are on CONCEPTS.html.
conceptwidth-luminosity relation
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
concepts[5]
conceptK-correction
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
concepts[6]
conceptpeculiar velocities
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
concepts[7]
conceptsystematic uncertainty
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
concepts[8]
conceptstretch factor
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
concepts[9]
Statistics — cross-field join keys
field-invariant statistical terms, used in their statistical sense (gated on a number / symbol / test). A p-value or a standard deviation means the SAME thing in physics, biology, psychology and sociology — so these are the strongest cross-field join keys. Grounded verbatim.
Bayesian
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[0]
not machine-vouchedBayesian — 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[0]
chi-square χ² as written: χ2
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[1]
not machine-vouchedchi-square — 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]
correlation r as written: correlation coefficient
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[2]
not machine-vouchedcorrelation — 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]
degrees-of-freedom df as written: degree of freedom
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[3]
not machine-voucheddegrees-of-freedom — 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]
mean μ as written: mean of
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[4]
not machine-vouchedmean — 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]
median
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[5]
sample-size n/N
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[7]
not machine-vouchedsample-size — 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]
standard-deviation SD/σ
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[8]
not machine-vouchedstandard-deviation — 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]
statistical-significance
Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher.
content_tags.statistics[9]
not machine-vouchedstatistical-significance — 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]

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.

Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification. · back to index · concepts · authors · עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824