Pith. Sign in

RECORD

The Hubble constant inferred from 18 time-delay lenses

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 12 Feb 2010

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We estimate the Hubble constant to be 66_{-4}^{+6} km/s/Mpc (for a flat Universe with \Omega_m=0.3, \Omega_\Lambda=0.7).

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1002.2570 (version 1)
Pith ID5OGEZSVA, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationDanuta Paraficz, Jens Hjorth. "The Hubble constant inferred from 18 time-delay lenses." arXiv:1002.2570 (2010). https://pith.science/paper/5OGEZSVA
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,612 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.28 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.08 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.26 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We present a simultaneous analysis of 18 galaxy lenses with time delay measurements. For each lens we derive mass maps using pixelated simultaneous modeling with shared Hubble constant. We estimate the Hubble constant to be 66_{-4}^{+6} km/s/Mpc (for a flat Universe with \Omega_m=0.3, \Omega_\Lambda=0.7). We have also selected a subsample of five relatively isolated early type galaxies and by simultaneous modeling with an additional constraint on isothermality of their mass profiles we get H_0=76 +/-3 km/s/Mpc.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We present a simultaneous analysis of 18 galaxy lenses with time delay measurements. contribution 0.96 0.95 0.04 asserted 0.98
s1 For each lens we derive mass maps using pixelated simultaneous modeling with shared Hubble constant. method 1.00 0.96 0.03 asserted 1.00
s2 We estimate the Hubble constant to be 66_{-4}^{+6} km/s/Mpc (for a flat Universe with \Omega_m=0.3, \Omega_\Lambda=0.7). result 1.00 0.97 0.83 asserted 1.00
s3 We have also selected a subsample of five relatively isolated early type galaxies and by simultaneous modeling with an additional constraint on isothermality of their mass profiles we get H_0=76 +/-3 km/s/Mpc. result 0.98 0.96 0.10 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.94.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We present a simultaneous analysis of 18 galaxy lenses with time delay measurements. For each lens we derive mass maps using pixelated simultaneous modeling with shared Hubble constant. We estimate the Hubble constant to be 66_{-4}^{+6} km/s/Mpc (for a flat Universe with \Omega_m=0.3, \Omega_\Lambda=0.7). We have also selected a subsample of five relatively isolated early type galaxies and by simultaneous modeling with an additional constraint on isothermality of their mass profiles we get H_0=76 +/-3 km/s/Mpc.

Human review
References
How the literature uses it

5 arXiv papers cite this in 5 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States a conflicting result 1 paper
  • Here we make the case for a Hubble constant that is even smaller than the lower bound of the accepted range, arguing on the basis of the great advantages, all theoretical in nature, of a Hubble constant of around 30 km/s/Mpc.

    The Case for a Hubble Constant of 30 km/s/Mpc · 0.82

Papers citing it · 3 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 1 paper
  • Indeed the time delay for the first gravitationally lensed quasar Q0957+561 is measured to be 417 days [ref] , and subsequently time delays have been measured for more than 20 quasar lens systems [ref] .

    Strong gravitational lensing of explosive transients · Introduction · 0.80

Cites it as background 1 paper
  • So far, time delays have been studied and applied in many ways: to constrain the Hubble parameter $H_0$ [ref] [ref] [ref] ; to study the galaxy mass profile with Monte Carlo simulations [ref] ; to measure the cosmological parameter $w$ [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] ; to improve the mass models of galaxies with the time delays of quasars [ref] .

    The rates and time-delay distribution of multiply imaged supernovae behind lensing clusters · Introduction · 0.82

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.