Sensitivity of calibration-free DESI DR2 BAO--supernova constraints to a distance-duality tilt

Abstract

Recent measurements from DESI baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) have reported a moderate preference for dynamical dark energy, challenging the $Λ$CDM paradigm. Nonetheless, such a trend could reflect a tension between the shape and the offset of the Hubble diagrams predicted by current BAO and Type Ia supernovae (SN) data, which may underpin a possible breakdown of the cosmic distance duality relation linking luminosity distances $D_{\rm L}$ and angular-diameter distances $D_{\rm A}$. We explore this possibility by parametrizing deviations from this relation as $η(z)\equiv D_{\rm L}/[{(1+z)}^2D_{\rm A}]=α{(1+z)}^\varepsilon$, and investigate how the preference for a Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) dynamical dark energy is modified once $\varepsilon\neq0$ is allowed. Using DESI DR2 and uncalibrated SN data (Pantheon$+$, DES-Dovekie, Union3, and Union3.1), we find that allowing $\varepsilon$ to vary freely in both $Λ$CDM and CPL reduces the CPL preference with respect to $Λ$CDM by a larger amount than the addition of spatial curvature $Ω_k$; only Union3.1 exhibits comparable reductions. We also find that the preference reduction is robust to alternative $η(z)$ parametrizations, and that the $η(z)$ constraints remain stable under the removal of BAO tracers or low-redshift cutoffs for Pantheon$+$, whereas the DES-Dovekie preference largely disappears once $z<0.1$ SN are removed. In a separate calibrated analysis, illustrative Planck sound-horizon and SH0ES absolute-magnitude priors give $α\simeq0.942\pm0.014$, quantifying the normalization mismatch under those assumptions. We also discuss photon-loss and varying-$G$ interpretations: ordinary positive opacity cannot explain the negative central tilts $\varepsilon$ found for a $Λ$CDM background, while local gravity tests strongly constrain the illustrative unscreened varying-$G$ scenario.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.