Pith. sign in

REVIEW

H₀ Tension: Response to Riess et al arXiv:1810.03526

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1810.07628 v1 pith:4F5XD3VO submitted 2018-10-17 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

H₀ Tension: Response to Riess et al arXiv:1810.03526

classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA
keywords riessanalysescepheidgaiashankstensionthereadvance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Riess et al (2018c) have claimed there exist seven problems in the analyses presented by Shanks et al (2018) where we argue that there is enough uncertainty in Cepheid distances and local peculiar velocity fields to explain the current tension in $H_0$. Here, we take each of the Riess et al (2018c) points in turn and suggest that either they do not apply or that the necessary caveats are already made by Shanks et al (2018). We conclude that the main point to be inferred from our analyses still stands which is that previous claims by Riess et al (2018b) that Gaia parallaxes confirm their Cepheid scale are, at best, premature in advance of further improvements in the Gaia astrometric solution.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.