How do systematic errors in distance measurements from supernovae versus BAO differ in their effects?

Systematic Errors in Supernovae vs. BAO Distance Measurements

These two methods accumulate systematic errors very differently, creating distinct biases that don't simply cancel out when combined—which is why comparing them reveals tensions in cosmology.

### Supernovae: Selection and Calibration Bias

Type Ia supernovae suffer from upstream calibration errors and subtle selection effects [AG-2025.02-014]. The most insidious problem is gravitational lensing: when a supernova's line of sight passes near a foreground galaxy, it gets magnified or demagnified. The catch is that *demagnified supernovae are more likely to be missed entirely*, biasing the observed sample toward accidentally-magnified (brighter) events. This systematically inflates measured distances at high redshift [AG-2025.02-014].

Separately, photometric calibration errors—how accurately we measure a supernova's true brightness—directly propagate into distance errors [AG-2025.11-239]. Unlike random noise, these calibration biases are *correlated* across many supernovae, warping the entire Hubble diagram in one direction. The absolute magnitude $M_{\rm B}$ (intrinsic brightness) uncertainty is particularly pernicious: even sub-percent errors here reshape what we infer about dark energy [AG-2025.11-239].

### BAO: Geometric Measure with Redshift Uncertainty

Baryon acoustic oscillations work differently: they measure the *angular size* of a standard "ruler" (imprinted in galaxy clustering at a known scale from the early universe) [AG-2025.01-125]. The error isn't primarily about getting the ruler's absolute size wrong; instead, redshift measurement uncertainties distort how we map galaxies in 3D space, affecting the radial distance scale more than the angular one [AG-2025.01-125].

Crucially, 2D and 3D BAO analyses give *inconsistently* high values of the sound horizon scale $r_d$, hinting at an unresolved systematic in how the clustering signal is measured or modeled [AG-2024.06-1119]. This suggests the error may lie in galaxy survey methodology rather than in calibration per se.

### Why They Don't Cancel

The two errors are uncorrelated in origin, so they don't average out [AG-2024.07-348]. A supernova calibration bias affects distance estimates at all redshifts in a correlated way, while BAO systematic errors (whether from 2D/3D methods or redshift uncertainties) affect the radial and transverse directions asymmetrically. When you test the cosmic distance duality relation—comparing supernova luminosity distances to BAO angular diameter distances at the same redshift—these independent biases create significant tension [AG-2024.05-207].

Indeed, BAO distances from different methods (2D vs. 3D) already disagree with each other [AG-2024.06-1119], while supernova samples refined with improved host-galaxy modeling show 3σ hints of evolving dark energy that persist even after accounting for known systematics [AG-2025.01-094]. The low-redshift tension is sharper than at high redshift [AG-2024.05-207], suggesting the errors accumulate differently depending on which distance ladder rung you're measuring from.

In short: supernovae fail you with *calibration bias* (high-redshift, multiplicative), while BAO fails you with *geometric bias* (direction-dependent, from survey structure). That's why they make terrible mutual checks.