Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 11 cited by

Consistent Calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch in the Large Magellanic Cloud on the Hubble Space Telescope Photometric System and a Re-determination of the Hubble Constant

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The TRGB distance-ladder anchor in the LMC is miscalibrated by mixed ground photometry; correcting it yields H0 = 72.4 km/s/Mpc.

desk verdict A careful empirical recalibration that moves TRGB-based H0 closer to the Cepheid-SNIa value; the main vulnerability is an unverifiable assumption about Freedman et al.'s SMC photometry, but an independent check in the paper largely mitigates it. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00993 v3 pith:YDE634AN submitted 2019-08-02 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Wenlong Yuan , Adam G. Riess , Lucas M. Macri , Stefano Casertano , Dan Scolnic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords TipoftheRedGiantBranchHubbleconstantLargeMagellanicCloudphotometriccalibrationstellarblendingextinctionOGLEHSTACSF814W
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB) distance scale has been miscalibrated because ground-based photometry of the Magellanic Clouds mixes two inconsistent surveys, and that correcting this raises the Hubble constant to 72.4. It uses archival Hubble images of twelve LMC fields to measure how much blending and filter differences bias the OGLE and MCPS ground surveys, finding biases up to about 0.1 mag in crowded fields. After transforming the LMC TRGB to the Hubble ACS F814W system and adopting the geometric distance to the LMC, it obtains an absolute TRGB luminosity of -3.97 +/- 0.046 mag. Applied to a recent TRGB-based distance ladder, this gives H0 = 72.4 +/- 2.0 km/s/Mpc rather than 69.8, with most of the shift coming from a 0.06 mag reduction in the estimated LMC extinction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is an empirical linear offset model: $\Delta$ m = a + b(N - 17) + c(F814W - 14.5) + d(V - I - 1.6), fitted to about 1,200 OGLE and 1,000 MCPS stars matched between ground catalogs and archival HST ACS images. N is the local stellar density within 20 arcsec; the density term captures blending, while the magnitude and color terms capture filter-response differences. The same matched-star machinery produces the OGLE-minus-MCPS offsets in the SMC (about 0.08 mag in V and 0.04 mag in I near the center) that drive the extinction correction and the new Hubble constant.

What would settle it

Publish the exact star list from the earlier TRGB extinction fit and recompute the OGLE-minus-MCPS V and I offsets for exactly those SMC stars. If the offsets are not roughly 0.08 and 0.04 mag, the inferred LMC extinction shift of 0.06 mag and the resulting H0 = 72.4 would change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the previously published TRGB calibration of the LMC was biased bright by about 0.06 mag of extinction because the SMC comparison photometry came from a different ground system than the LMC photometry. Using OGLE photometry for both Clouds removes the inconsistency and yields A_I(LMC) = 0.10 mag, consistent with independent reddening maps. The authors transform the corrected LMC TRGB from the OGLE I band to the HST ACS F814W system via an empirical offset, obtaining M_F814W = -3.97 +/- 0.046 mag, and show that the Freedman et al. (2019) TRGB+SN Ia ladder then yields H0 = 72.4 +/- 2.0 km/s/Mpc.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the SMC region used in the comparison it criticizes is the same region where it measured the OGLE-minus-MCPS offsets; the original star list has never been published, so the offsets could be different for the stars actually used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the TRGB anchor is -3.97 on ACS F814W, the TRGB distance ladder with SNe Ia gives H0 = 72.4, bringing it into agreement with the Cepheid distance ladder.
  • The MCPS catalog should not be used for precision TRGB work in the Magellanic Clouds; future calibrations should use OGLE or space-based photometry.
  • Consistent photometry between the Clouds lowers the inferred LMC TRGB extinction to A_I = 0.10 mag, matching red clump reddening maps.
  • The filter transformation from OGLE I to ACS F814W is -0.023 mag for TRGB stars, a non-negligible correction at current precision.
  • The empirical color relation F555W - F814W = 1.082(V - I) provides a tool for future color-dependent TRGB calibrations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the exact star list from the earlier SMC extinction comparison becomes available, the OGLE-minus-MCPS offsets can be recomputed on that list, directly confirming or revising the 0.06 mag extinction shift.
  • The same density-dependent blending correction could be applied to other ground surveys, such as near-infrared surveys of the Magellanic Clouds, to test whether NIR TRGB anchors need similar corrections.
  • A Gaia-based parallax calibration of halo TRGB stars, where extinction is tiny, would provide an independent check of the -3.97 mag anchor.
  • If the higher H0 value stands, the TRGB and Cepheid ladders agree, suggesting that the earlier TRGB extinction treatment carried the systematic error rather than new physics being required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper calibrates the LMC TRGB on the HST/ACS F814W system by comparing archival ACS F555W/F814W photometry in 12 LMC fields with OGLE-III and MCPS ground catalogs. It models the ground-to-HST offset as a linear function of local density, F814W magnitude, and V-I color (Eq. 1), finds that MCPS photometry is biased bright by up to ~0.1 mag and OGLE by ~0.01 mag, and applies the OGLE-based correction to the ten JL17 LMC TRGB fields. Combining with the Pietrzynski et al. (2019) distance gives M_F814W = -3.97 +/- 0.046 mag. In Section 4.2, it revises the F19 LMC extinction from A_I = 0.16 to 0.10 mag by applying OGLE-minus-MCPS offsets to the SMC TRGB photometry, and then claims H0 = 72.4 +/- 2.0 km/s/Mpc for the F19 TRGB+SN Ia ladder, which is 3.7% above F19's value.

Significance. If the calibration holds, the paper provides a valuable empirical cross-instrument correction and moves the TRGB-based Hubble constant closer to the Cepheid-based value, which is relevant to the current H0 tension. Notable strengths are the direct use of archival HST data, the density-dependent blending model, the explicit tests of cuts and clipping, the machine-readable photometry tables, and the independent OGLE-only cross-check using DEB relative distances. The central caveat is that the headline H0 shift depends on an identification of F19's SMC sample that the paper itself states is not directly provided; this makes the main numerical claim conditional on an external, unverifiable input.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 10, Table 4] The revision of A_I(LMC) from 0.16 to 0.10 mag, and hence the 3.7% increase in H0, rests on the assertion that F19 measured the SMC TRGB with MCPS photometry near the SMC center and the LMC TRGB with OGLE away from the bar; this is supported only by a private communication from Madore, and the paper itself notes that F19's star list has not been provided. The offsets applied (Delta-V ~ 0.07-0.08 and Delta-I ~ 0.04 mag) are averages over r < 30' and r < 40' circular regions around the SMC center, computed for all TRGB-like stars, not necessarily for the exact magnitude/color/spatial selection used by F19. Since the extinction solution is most sensitive to V, a 0.02 mag error in the assumed offset corresponds to roughly 1% in H0, comparable to the quoted 2.0 km/s/Mpc uncertainty. To make the central result robust, the authors need to obtain F19's actual SMC star list, or quantify how the inferred A_I(LMC) changes for plausible alternative selections (e.g., smaller radii, off-center fields, different color cuts). The independent OGLE-only estimate in Section 4.2 supports a low A_I(LMC), but it does not verify the offset applied to F19's specific SMC photometry.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'I-bang' should read 'I-band'.
  2. [Section 5] The sentence 'For OGLE V and ACS F555W the the offset is strongly color-dependent' contains a duplicated 'the'.
  3. [Table 3] The note that coefficient values are multiplied by 1000 should appear in the table caption rather than in the surrounding text, to prevent readers from misreading the model coefficients.
  4. [§4.3 and Fig. 11] The metallicity-corrected LMC-IC1613 comparison is explicitly labeled 'naive' and 'illustrative' and is not used in the final H0; moving it to an appendix or describing it solely as a consistency check would make it clearer that the main result does not depend on it.
  5. [Section 4.2] The paper should clarify how the quoted error of +/- 2.0 km/s/Mpc on H0 is formed, namely whether it is taken from F19 unchanged or includes the new 0.046 mag zero-point uncertainty of the LMC TRGB calibration.
  6. [Figure 10, right panel] The x-axis label of the right panel is not visible in the text; please add a label, since the text implies it is the relative distance modulus between the Clouds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the calibration is anchored to independent HST photometry, external TRGB detections, and geometric distances.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external data. The ground-to-HST correction (Eq. 1) is fitted to per-star photometric differences between archival ACS F814W/F555W observations and OGLE/MCPS catalogs over 14.5<I<17 mag; it is not fitted to the JL17 TRGB magnitude itself, and the final F814W TRGB is obtained by adding the predicted mean correction to the externally measured JL17 TRGB values. The LMC anchor uses the geometric distance of Pietrzynski et al. (2019), and the F19 host TRGB magnitudes are used as independent apparent measurements, so the H0=72.4 result is not equivalent to any fitted parameter. The largest assumption, that F19's SMC photometry corresponds to the central MCPS region based on a private communication from Madore (Sec. 4.2), is an unverifiable external-validity concern rather than a circular reduction; the paper itself discloses that F19's star list was not provided. No self-citation carries the argument, and no equation defines its output in terms of its target.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical corrections fitted with free parameters, on the standard-candle assumption, on adopted extinction maps, and on an unverified identification of F19's SMC sample. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • OGLE I-band ground-to-HST offset a_I = -0.014 +/- 0.003 mag
    Zero-point of Equation 1; directly enters the F814W TRGB correction applied to the JL17 values.
  • OGLE I-band density slope b_I = (0.57 +/- 0.08) x 10^-3 per star
    Scales the blending correction with local stellar number density N in Equation 1.
  • OGLE I-band magnitude slope c_I = (4.3 +/- 1.1) x 10^-3 per mag
    Models the brightness dependence of the ground-to-HST offset in Equation 1.
  • OGLE I-band color slope d_I = (-5.6 +/- 2.2) x 10^-3 per mag
    Color term in Equation 1 relating the offset to V-I color.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The I-band TRGB is a stable standard candle across the metallicity and star formation histories spanned by the LMC, SMC, IC 1613, and SN Ia hosts.
    Underlies transferring the LMC calibration to the host sample and the LMC-SMC extinction comparison; the paper itself notes that metallicity and SFH corrections may be needed in the NIR.
  • ad hoc to paper The ground-to-HST photometric offset is exactly described by a linear function of local number density, F814W magnitude, and V-I color, and this model extrapolates to the TRGB edge.
    Equation 1 defines the model; it is fitted to about 1200 stars and applied to all JL17 fields without an independent model of unresolved flux.
  • domain assumption Haschke et al. (2011) OGLE reddening maps correctly trace the line-of-sight extinction for TRGB stars in the LMC fields.
    The JL17 extinction-corrected I0 values used to derive M_F814W inherit these maps; the paper cross-checks but cannot measure extinction independently in every field.
  • ad hoc to paper The SMC OGLE-MCPS photometric offsets measured over r < 30' and r < 40' circles represent the offset in F19's actual SMC TRGB sample.
    F19's star list is not available; the 0.06 mag change in LMC extinction and in H0 depends on this identification.
  • ad hoc to paper The OGLE density sample with I < 18 mag and a 20'' counting radius traces the local stellar density relevant to blending.
    Used to define N in Equation 1; no luminosity-density map or artificial star test is available.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consistent Calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch in the Large Magellanic Cloud on the Hubble Space Telescope Photometric System and a Re-determination of the Hubble Constant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDE634AN

@misc{pith2026190800993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consistent Calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch in the Large Magellanic Cloud on the Hubble Space Telescope Photometric System and a Re-determination of the Hubble Constant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDE634AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00993}
}
read the original abstract

We present a calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB) in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) on the HST/ACS F814W system. We use archival HST observations to derive blending corrections and photometric transformations for two ground-based wide-area imaging surveys of the Magellanic Clouds. We show that these surveys are biased bright by up to ~0.1 mag in the optical due to blending, and that the bias is a function of local stellar density. We correct the LMC TRGB magnitudes from Jang & Lee (2017) and use the geometric distance from Pietrzynski et al. (2019) to obtain an absolute TRGB magnitude of M_F814W=-3.97+/-0.046 mag. Applying this calibration to the TRGB magnitudes from Freedman et al. (2019) in SN Ia hosts yields a value for the Hubble constant of H_0=72.4+/-2.0 km/s/Mpc for their TRGB+SNe Ia distance ladder. The difference in the TRGB calibration and the value of H_0 derived here and by Freedman et al. (2019) primarily results from their overestimate of the LMC extinction, caused by inconsistencies in their different sources of TRGB photometry for the Magellanic Clouds. Using the same source of photometry (OGLE) for both Clouds and applying the aforementioned corrections yields a value for the LMC I-band TRGB extinction that is lower by 0.06 mag, consistent with independent OGLE reddening maps used by us and by Jang & Lee (2017) to calibrate TRGB and determine H_0.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Locations of 12 HST fields used in this study (red squares). The size of the squares is in scale of the HST field of view. The lower right image cuts show the comparison of resolving power between the ACS F814W and OGLE I-band reference image which was observed at top seeing condition. The yellow dashed ellipse defined the “bar region” adopted in this work. sample was used to derive the local stellar number den￾sity… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Filter response curves for ACS F814W (black), Cousins I (red), and Sloan Gunn i (blue), which are used by the HST, OGLE, and MCPS observations, respectively. The responses are set to arbitrary scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Smoothed local number density distribution across the LMC obtained by a thin-plate spline fit. The bar region has a typical density of 10 . N . 30, where N is the number of stars within 2000 and I < 18 mag. the limited range of overlapping magnitudes and colors, there were only 1208 OGLE and 1042 MCPS sources matched to the HST catalog with 14.5 < I < 17 mag and 0.5 < V −I < 2.5 mag. Since each HST field contains a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Linear regression fit of Eqn. 1 to the OGLE (top) and MCPS (bottom) data in the overlapping HST fields within the LMC. Solid blue lines indicate the best-fit trends while dashed blue lines indicate the ±1σ dispersion of residuals. Open circles indicate rejected objects…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: V -band (left) and I-bang (right) magnitude differences between OGLE and MCPS for TRGB stars in two circular regions near the center of the SMC with radii of 300 (red), and 400 (red and black). The mean and median values for the red points are indicated by red solid li…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted mean blending corrections of TRGB stars across the LMC for the OGLE catalog (left) and MCPS catalog (right). Offsets due to filter transformation were subtracted for both panels. The magenta stars indicate the locations of ten fields studied by Jang & Lee (20…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: I-band extinction for TRGB stars in the central (left) and outer (right) regions of the LMC based on Haschke et al. (2011), which was adopted by JL17. The red vertical lines indicate the median values of AI . In the previous section we transformed the extinction￾free, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of ground I and ACS F814W TRGB magnitudes (blue and red symbols, respectively) for the ten fields of JL17. The blue dashed and red dotted lines indicate the weighted means of the respective measurements. are broadened by many factors beside differential redd…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Selected central (inner circle) and broader (outer circle) regions for magnitude comparison between OGLE and MCPS photometry of the SMC. son in §3 of these two sources of ground photometry in the LMC revealed large offsets between them for TRGB stars that result from d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Determination of LMC extinction based on LMC and SMC TRGB magnitudes at VIJHK, following the method of F19. This method simultaneously constrains the relative distance modulus (a constant term) and the relative extinction (multiplier of reddening law). The best-fit re…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Mira Variables in the Type Ia Supernova Host NGC 1559: An Alternative Candle to Measure the Hubble Constant

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The first Mira-variable-based calibration of a Type Ia supernova yields a distance to NGC 1559 and a Hubble constant of about 73 km/s/Mpc, consistent with Cepheid-based values.

  2. Oscillating scalar fields and the Hubble tension: a resolution with novel signatures

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A subdominant oscillating scalar field with about 10% energy density at redshift 3500 and a potential ∝ φ^{2n} (n≈3) can resolve the Hubble tension, with CMB-S4-detectable polarization signatures and self-resonance for n≈2.

  3. Gravitational waves, CMB polarization, and the Hubble tension

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The B-mode recombination peak, tied to the light horizon at last scattering, can act as an independent early-universe standard ruler, measurable to about 2% with stage-IV CMB experiments.

  4. An Improved Distance to NGC 4258 and its Implications for the Hubble Constant

    astro-ph.GA 2019-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Improved maser-based geometric distance to NGC 4258 (7.576 +/- 0.112 Mpc total error) yields H0 = 73.5 +/- 1.4 km/s/Mpc when combined with other anchors, maintaining a roughly 4.2 sigma tension with Planck.

  5. The Hubble constant tension with next-generation galaxy surveys

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Forecast: Euclid-like and SKA-like BAO surveys, combined with Gaussian-process regression, could measure H0 to about 1% precision and discriminate between Planck and Riess values at roughly 5 sigma.

  6. Analytic Calculation of Covariance between Cosmological Parameters from Correlated Data Sets, with an Application to SPTpol

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    An analytic Fisher-based formula computes the covariance between parameters from two correlated data sets; applied to SPTpol TE and EE spectra, it shows the constraints are weakly positively correlated and that ignori...

  7. Dark Neutrino interactions phase out the Hubble tension

    hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dark matter-neutrino interactions that block neutrino free streaming shift CMB acoustic peaks and reduce the Hubble tension from about 3.8σ to about 2.1σ in a fit to Planck and WiggleZ data.

  8. Resolving Hubble Tension with Quintom Dark Energy Model

    gr-qc 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A small negative-density component with equation of state 1/3≤w≤1 can lift H0 from 67.4 to about 74, but the coupled quintom model realizing it either misses the CMB peak or gives H0=68.55.

  9. Late Time Dynamical Dark Energy and the CMB-Distance Ladder Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The SNIa absolute-magnitude tension between the distance ladder (−19.204) and CMB+ΛCDM (−19.430) is independent of late-time expansion history, and DESI's w0–wa dark-energy hints shift H0 by only ~0.3–0.4 km/s/Mpc.

  10. Quasar X-ray and UV flux, baryon acoustic oscillation, and Hubble parameter measurement constraints on cosmological model parameters

    astro-ph.CO 2019-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Quasar X-ray and UV flux data are weak but consistent with BAO and H(z) data, and the joint data mildly favor closed spatial geometry and dynamical dark energy over flat LambdaCDM.

  11. Cosmology With Low-Redshift Observations: No Signal For New Physics

    astro-ph.CO 2019-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Combining SN, BAO, lensing, cosmic chronometer, and growth data, the authors find ΛCDM remains the best dark energy model, with H0 and S8 consistent with most early and late universe probes within 2σ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    7JkՊR[ s =! č l*8 T n6ຸV#

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    A., Alves , D

    Alcock , C., Allsman , R. A., Alves , D. R., et al. 2000, , 542, 281, 10.1086/309512

    doi:10.1086/309512 2000

  5. [5]

    M., Rejkuba , M., et al

    Bhardwaj , A., Macri , L. M., Rejkuba , M., et al. 2017, , 153, 154, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5e4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa5e4f 2017

  6. [6]

    Choudhury , S., Subramaniam , A., & Cole , A. A. 2016, , 455, 1855, 10.1093/mnras/stv2414

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2414 2016

  7. [7]

    Cioni , M. R. L., Clementini , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2011, , 527, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016137

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016137 2011

  8. [8]

    J., Williams , B

    Dalcanton , J. J., Williams , B. F., Melbourne , J. L., et al. 2012, , 198, 6, 10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/6 2012

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    P., Hughes , A., et al

    Dobashi , K., Bernard , J. P., Hughes , A., et al. 2008, , 484, 205, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079151

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    2009, , 137, 5099, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/5099

    Dobashi , K., Bernard , J.-P., Kawamura , A., et al. 2009, , 137, 5099, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/5099

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63, 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Madore , B

    Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., Gibson , B. K., et al. 2001, , 553, 47, 10.1086/320638

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Madore , B

    Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., Hatt , D., et al. 2019, , 882, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Gallart , C., Aparicio , A., & Vilchez , J. M. 1996, , 112, 1928, 10.1086/118153

    1996 doi

  7. [15]

    B., et al

    Graczyk , D., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Thompson , I. B., et al. 2018, , 860, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2bf

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Groenewegen , M. A. T., Cioni , M. R. L., Girardi , L., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.02581. 1812.02581

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    K., & Duffau , S

    Haschke , R., Grebel , E. K., & Duffau , S. 2011, , 141, 158, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/158

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    L., Freedman , W

    Hatt , D., Beaton , R. L., Freedman , W. L., et al. 2017, , 845, 146, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f73

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Afonso , C., & Dolphin , A

    Holtzman , J. A., Afonso , C., & Dolphin , A. 2006, , 166, 534, 10.1086/507074

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Freedman , W

    Hoyt , T. J., Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., et al. 2018, , 858, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7ed

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Lee , M

    Jang , I. S., & Lee , M. G. 2017, , 835, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/28

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Ngeow , C.-C., Kanbur , S

    Macri , L. M., Ngeow , C.-C., Kanbur , S. M., Mahzooni , S., & Smitka , M. T. 2015, , 149, 117, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/117

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Mager , V., & Freedman , W

    Madore , B. F., Mager , V., & Freedman , W. L. 2009, , 690, 389, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/389

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    A., Madore , B

    Mager , V. A., Madore , B. F., & Freedman , W. L. 2008, , 689, 721, 10.1086/592563

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    2006, , 132, 2729, 10.1086/508925

    Makarov , D., Makarova , L., Rizzi , L., et al. 2006, , 132, 2729, 10.1086/508925

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    McQuinn , K. B. W., Boyer , M., Skillman , E. D., & Dolphin , A. E. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.01571. 1904.01571

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    McQuinn , K. B. W., Boyer , M. L., Mitchell , M. B., et al. 2017, , 834, 78, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/78

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2010, , 405, 1025, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16486.x

    M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., Fukugita , M., & Richards , G. 2010, , 405, 1025, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16486.x

    2010

  21. [29]

    L., Hasselquist , S., Hayes , C

    Nidever , D. L., Hasselquist , S., Hayes , C. R., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.03448. 1901.03448

    2019

  22. [30]

    2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gallenne , A., et al. 2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Casertano , S., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Casertano , S., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., & Scolnic , D. 2019, , 876, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Macri , L., Casertano , S., et al

    Riess , A. G., Macri , L., Casertano , S., et al. 2011, , 730, 119, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/119

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    G., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Macri , L. M., Hoffmann , S. L., et al. 2016, , 826, 56, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Saha , A., et al

    Sandage , A., Tammann , G. A., Saha , A., et al. 2006, , 653, 843, 10.1086/508853

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Ben \' tez , N., et al

    Sirianni , M., Jee , M. J., Ben \' tez , N., et al. 2005, , 117, 1049, 10.1086/444553

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    2008, , 58, 163

    Soszynski , I., Poleski , R., Udalski , A., et al. 2008, , 58, 163. 0808.2210

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K., et al

    Soszy \'n ski , I., Udalski , A., Szyma \'n ski , M. K., et al. 2009 a , , 59, 239. 0910.1354

    2009 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2009 b , , 59, 1

    ---. 2009 b , , 59, 1. 0903.2482

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Stetson , P. B. 1987, , 99, 191, 10.1086/131977

    1987 doi

  33. [41]

    B., & Harris , W

    Stetson , P. B., & Harris , W. E. 1988, , 96, 909, 10.1086/114856

    1988 doi

  34. [42]

    2015, Baltic Astronomy, 24, 314, 10.1515/astro-2017-0232

    Stonkut \.e , R., & Vansevi c ius , V. 2015, Baltic Astronomy, 24, 314, 10.1515/astro-2017-0232

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2005, , 430, 421, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041279

    Subramaniam , A. 2005, , 430, 421, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041279

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    1997, , 47, 319

    Udalski , A., Kubiak , M., & Szymanski , M. 1997, , 47, 319. astro-ph/9710091

    1997 arXiv

  37. [45]

    K., Soszynski , I., & Poleski , R

    Udalski , A., Szymanski , M. K., Soszynski , I., & Poleski , R. 2008 a , , 58, 69. 0807.3884

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    K., et al

    Udalski , A., Soszynski , I., Szymanski , M. K., et al. 2008 b , , 58, 89. 0807.3889

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2017, , 842, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7565

    Wielg \'o rski , P., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Gieren , W., et al. 2017, , 842, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7565

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    M., He , S., et al

    Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., He , S., et al. 2017, , 154, 149, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa86f1

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    B., & Grebel , E

    Zaritsky , D., Harris , J., Thompson , I. B., & Grebel , E. K. 2004, , 128, 1606, 10.1086/423910

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    B., Grebel , E

    Zaritsky , D., Harris , J., Thompson , I. B., Grebel , E. K., & Massey , P. 2002, , 123, 855, 10.1086/338437

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.