AG-2026.01-275·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qc
A new magnitude--redshift relation based on Type Ia supernovae
Authors
- Ósmar Rodríguez
- Alejandro Clocchiatti
Abstract
We present a new empirical relation between the standardized magnitude ($m$) of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) and redshift ($z$). Using Pantheon+ and DES-SN5YR, we find a negative linear correlation between $m-5\log(z(1+z))$ and $z$, implying that their magnitude--redshift relation can be parametrized with just two parameters: an intercept $\mathcal{M}$ and a slope $b$. This relation corresponds to the luminosity distance $d_L(z)=c\,H_0^{-1}z(1+z)10^{bz/5}$ and is valid up to at least $z\simeq1.1$. It outperforms the $Λ$CDM and flat $w$CDM models and the (2,1) Padé approximant for $d_L(z)$, and performs comparably to the flat $Λ$CDM model and the (2,1) Padé($j_0=1$) model of Hu et al. Furthermore, the relation is stable in the absence of low-$z$ SNe, making it suitable for fitting Hubble diagrams of SNe Ia without the need to add a low-$z$ sample. In deep fields in particular, assuming that the large-scale density is independent of the comoving radial coordinate, $b\propto q_0+1$. We fit the empirical relation to SN data in eight deep-field regions and find that their fitted $\mathcal{M}$ and $b$ parameters are consistent within $1.6\,σ$, in agreement with isotropy. The inferred $q_0$ values, ranging from $-0.6$ to $-0.4$, are consistent within $1.5\,σ$ and significantly lower than zero, indicating statistically consistent cosmic acceleration across all eight regions. We apply the empirical relation to the DES-Dovekie and Amalgame SN samples, finding $b$ values consistent with those from DES-SN5YR and Pantheon+. Finally, using the empirical relation in the hemispheric comparison method applied to Pantheon+ up to $z=1.1$, we find no evidence for anisotropies in $\mathcal{M}$ and $b$.
Submitted
13 January 20263 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2601.08505
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.