Hubble tension or a transition of the Cepheid SnIa calibrator parameters?

Foteini Skara; Leandros Perivolaropoulos

REVIEW

Hubble tension or a transition of the Cepheid SnIa calibrator parameters?

Leandros Perivolaropoulos, Foteini Skara

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics · Submitted 9 Sep 2021 · 205 references

Pith's verdict: A clean, reproducible extension of Mortsell et al. that drops H0 to ~68 across all relaxed models — but the 'transition' interpretation outruns the statistics, and Section IV contradicts the paper's own Table III.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 30, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2109.04406 (version 2)

Pith IDEHLR3QJP, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationFoteini Skara, Leandros Perivolaropoulos. "Hubble tension or a transition of the Cepheid SnIa calibrator parameters?." arXiv:2109.04406 (2021). https://pith.science/paper/EHLR3QJP

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Short version: the H0 part holds up, the transition part does not yet. What is genuinely new relative to Mortsell et al. (2021) — which they reproduce and say so — is the M_H^W variation, the two-universal-value models IV–VI, and the AIC/BIC ranking. That is a real extension, done cleanly: linear least squares, a full error matrix that includes color errors where SH0ES supplies them, and data plus code on GitHub. The qualitative result — break universality of R_W or M_H^W and H0 falls from ~73 to ~67–69 — survives across all six relaxed models in Table I. That is the paper's most useful contribution, and it does not depend on which model wins. Where it is soft. First, D_c comes from scanning [0.01, 37] Mpc and reporting the minimum sigma-distance, with no trials factor. The M_H^W case gets a Monte Carlo homogenization test (Figs. 8, 10) showing the effect disappears for uniformized data, which is good practice; the R_W scan in Fig. 5, which is what model IV actually rests on, never gets that test. That is the load-bearing gap, and the stress-test note is right to flag it. Second, Section IV says AIC and BIC 'consistently favor model IV', but Table III ranks model I first by AIC (1778.76 vs 1804.19). The abstract's narrower IV-versus-Base claim is correct; the Section IV sentence is not, and should be fixed. Third, H0 = 68 is an algebraic transform of the fitted M_B through Eq. (5.1). That is the standard ladder step, not a flaw, but it means 'the tension is resolved' restates the fit rather than testing it independently. Fourth, the abstract states no limitations at all, while Section VI does discuss dust and the spatial-versus-temporal ambiguity; that caveat belongs in the abstract. And the false-vacuum-bubble, 15 Mpc, K-Pg extinction passage in Section VI is speculation that will cost the paper readers it could otherwise keep. Who should read it: anyone working the Cepheid ladder or the H0 tension, and anyone who wants a worked template for testing universality assumptions in a calibrator dataset. Recommendation: send it out. The analysis is reproducible and the H0 claim matters; the transition claim needs the R_W Monte Carlo and the Table III correction before anyone takes it at face value.

Referee report

Significance

The question is well posed and the analysis is a natural, largely reproducible extension of Mortsell et al. (2021): the paper goes beyond that work by also breaking universality in M_H^W and by introducing the two-universal-value models, which add only one parameter each and are therefore a genuinely economical alternative to per-galaxy fits. The numerical analysis files are public, the data are tabulated in Appendix B, and the qualitative result that breaking universality in R_W or M_H^W systematically lowers the inferred M_B and hence H_0 is visible across models I–VI in Table I and is not an artefact of a single fit. If the model IV preference survives a proper treatment of the D_c selection and a null test of the R_W transition, the consequence would be substantial: the local distance ladder would no longer be in tension with the CMB, and the case for late-universe new physics would weaken considerably. The step from that to a fundamental-physics transition is, however, much less secure than the H_0 shift, and the paper's own model-selection table does not support the strongest form of the claim as currently worded.

Major objections (4)

[Section III.1, Fig. 5; Section IV, Table I] The critical distance D_c is obtained by scanning D_c over [0.01, 37] Mpc and reporting the value that minimises the sigma-distance, and Eq. (3.16) further takes the minimum of two directional distances d_sigma,12 and d_sigma,21. Both operations are selections on the data, and neither is penalised anywhere in the paper: the quoted 3–4σ mismatch is a post-scan minimum with no trials factor, and the minimum over two directions in Eq. (3.16) reduces the effective significance further. The same problem propagates into the model comparison. Models IV, V and VI fix D_c = 16 Mpc, but Table I counts M = 30, 30 and 31 parameters respectively, i.e. D_c is not counted as a fitted parameter even though it was chosen from the same data. Since Delta-AIC between model IV (1804.19) and Base (1815.83) is only 11.6, and Delta-BIC is only 6.2, adding one parameter to the count for D_c materially changes the strength of the preference. The authors should either profile over D_c inside each two-value model (making the penalty explicit and the fit honest) or state clearly that the quoted significances are uncorrected for the scan, and report the trials-factor-corrected significance of the R_W transition.
[Section III.2, Figs. 8 and 10] The Monte Carlo homogenisation test that is used to argue the M_H^W transition is not a methodological artefact is, as described in the text, generated by drawing M_H^W values from a Gaussian whose standard deviation is 'the corresponding 1σ error' of the global universal fit. That dispersion is about 0.028 mag (Table I), whereas the galaxy-to-galaxy values plotted in Fig. 6 scatter by roughly 0.2 mag. A null constructed with an order-of-magnitude too little scatter is close to a constant and will trivially show no transition, so the yellow band in Fig. 8 and the pink region in Fig. 10 do not constitute a meaningful null test. The null should be generated with the observed galaxy-to-galaxy dispersion of the fitted M_H^W (and likewise of R_W), not with the error on the mean. More importantly, the R_W transition — which is the one that model IV, the favoured model, actually relies on — is never subjected to this test at all: Fig. 5 shows the raw sigma-distance curve with no Monte Carlo band. The same homogenisation test applied to R_W is the single most informative check the authors could add, and its absence is a gap in the load-bearing argument.
[Section IV, Table III, Fig. 15] The claim that model IV is 'the preferred model' is contradicted by the paper's own ranking table. In Table III, AIC ranks model I first in both columns (1778.76 for model I versus 1804.19 for model IV at sigma_LMC = 0; 1666.06 versus 1671.46 at sigma_LMC = 0.08), and only BIC ranks model IV first. The text of Section IV ('in terms of the AIC and BIC, fitting for two universal values of R_W with global M_H^W is the preferred model (case IV)') and the caption of Fig. 15 ('case IV ... is the best model') therefore overstate what the table shows. The abstract's narrower statement, that AIC and BIC favour model IV over the Base model, is correct and survives; the overall-best-model claim does not. The authors should either restrict the claim to the IV-versus-Base comparison, or explain why the AIC preference for model I (which has 21 more parameters) should be discounted, and correct the Fig. 15 caption accordingly.
[Section V, Eq. (5.1); Section VI] The headline conclusion that H_0 = 68.06 ± 1.80 km/s/Mpc is 'consistent with' Planck is obtained by substituting the fitted M_B into Eq. (5.1), so it is an algebraic restatement of the fitted M_B rather than an independent test; the entire downward shift in H_0 is inherited from the R_W split, and therefore inherits every fragility of the transition identification discussed above. Two things would strengthen this considerably. First, the paper fits only a sharp step; a smooth alternative (R_W or M_H^W varying continuously with distance, or correlating with a host property such as stellar mass, metallicity or crowding) is never fitted, so the data are not shown to prefer a step over a gradient. Second, no held-out or split-sample validation is performed: the same Cepheids that select D_c and the model also produce M_B. A fit in which R_W is a smooth function of distance, compared to model IV by the same AIC/BIC machinery, would directly test whether the 'transition' language is warranted or whether the effect is a smooth systematic. Absent that, the abstract's 'the Hubble crisis is not present' should be softened to a statement about what happens if the two-value parameterisation is adopted.

Minor objections (8)

[Section I, Eq. (1.4)] Eq. (1.4) is printed as Delta-M_B = 154 log10(Delta-mu_G - 1), which is neither dimensionally nor numerically sensible; the standard relation is Delta-M_B = (15/4) log10(mu_G), and the '154' appears to be a lost fraction. The argument should also be mu_G, not Delta-mu_G - 1. Please correct, since the quoted Delta-mu_G = -0.12 in Eq. (1.5) depends on it.
[Table I, rows III and V] In the model III row both split values are labelled M^{W,<}_H (-5.904 and -6.092); the second should carry the '>' superscript. The same typographical error appears in the model V row (-5.863 and -6.024).
[Section III.1 versus Abstract] The abstract reports a 3σ mismatch, Section III.1 reports 'more that 4σ' for the R_W split, and Section III.2 reports 'more that 3σ' for M_H^W. Please make the quoted significance consistent across abstract, Sections III.1–III.3 and the conclusions, and fix the 'more that' typo (it occurs at least three times).
[Fig. 3 caption versus Section III.1] The Fig. 3 caption gives the reference values as R_W = 0.366 and 0.369, while the text of Section III.1 gives 0.365 and 0.369. Please reconcile.
[Section II.3 and Table I] The text states a sample of 1630 Cepheids (74 MW + 70 LMC + 1486), while Table I uses N = 1650. The difference presumably comes from the 19 SnIa magnitudes and the two anchor distance priors, but this should be stated explicitly so that the reader can verify the dof values used in the AIC/BIC penalties.
[Section VI] The discussion of the K-Pg extinction, the Chicxulub crater and the increased impactor rate is far outside the scope of a Cepheid calibration paper and is not supported by anything in the analysis; I would remove it. The false-vacuum estimate in Eqs. (6.1)–(6.2) is presented as a numerical coincidence (R_b ~ 15 Mpc) with an O(1) constant B_1 left free, and should be labelled explicitly as an order-of-magnitude speculation rather than a prediction of the model.
[Section IV, Eq. (5.2)] The expression for alpha_B in Eq. (5.2) is difficult to parse as typeset (the redshift expansion terms and the 0.2 m_B factor run together). Please re-set it, and state explicitly that q_0 and j_0 are fixed to the values of Ref. [18] rather than fitted.
[General] The manuscript nowhere states its limitations: the D_c scan, the min-over-directions in Eq. (3.16), the absence of a smooth-systematic alternative, and the fact that the H_0 shift follows algebraically from M_B are all left implicit. A short paragraph in Section VI acknowledging these would materially improve the paper's framing.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A two-value Cepheid color parameter could dissolve the Hubble tension

The reading

The paper asks whether the mismatch between the local distance ladder ($H_0$ near $73$ km/s/Mpc) and the cosmic microwave background ($67.4$ km/s/Mpc) is really new physics, or whether it comes from assuming that two empirical Cepheid calibration numbers are the same in every galaxy. The authors re-fit the SH0ES Cepheid and supernova data while letting the Wesenheit color coefficient $R_W$ and the Cepheid absolute magnitude $M_H^W$ vary, either per galaxy or as two universal values split at a critical distance $D_c$. Using AIC and BIC to penalize extra parameters, they find that a model with two values of $R_W$ — one for galaxies nearer than about $16$ Mpc and one for galaxies beyond — beats the standard universal-value model. In that favored fit the calibrated supernova absolute magnitude shifts, and the inferred $H_0 = 68.06$ is consistent with the CMB value, so the tension would not be a cosmological crisis but a property of the calibrators. The authors also suggest the split could reflect a real physics transition within the last $100$ million years, while noting dust differences between galaxies as a mundane alternative.

What carries the argument

The carrier is the Wesenheit magnitude, $m_H - R_W(V-I)$, a reddening-free combination in which a single empirical coefficient $R_W$ absorbs both dust extinction and the intrinsic color of Cepheids. The standard analysis assumes one $R_W$ for all galaxies; the paper instead treats $R_W$ as either a per-galaxy free parameter or as a two-valued step function of distance, and does the same for the absolute magnitude $M_H^W$. All parameters are fitted simultaneously by linear least squares on a large design matrix that couples Cepheid photometry, parallaxes, anchor distances, and supernova magnitudes, so that changing $R_W$ propagates directly into the host-galaxy distance moduli and then into $M_B$ and $H_0$. Model ranking is done with AIC and BIC, which add penalties of $2M$ and $M ln N$ to $chi^2_min$ and thereby decide whether the extra parameter of a two-value split is worth its cost.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Cepheid data themselves prefer a broken universality of the Wesenheit color coefficient $R_W$. Fitting $R_W$ separately for each galaxy reproduces a previously reported pattern in which nearby Cepheids and distant Cepheids give different values; the paper's own split-sample scan finds a step at $D_c$ between roughly $8$ and $18$ Mpc, with $R_W^{<} = 0.388$ versus $R_W^{>} = 0.206$ (about $4$ $\sigma$) and, for the magnitude case, $M_H^{W,<} = -5.974$ versus $M_H^{W,>} = -6.126$ mag (about $3$ $\sigma$). The decisive step is the model comparison: among eight parameterizations, the two-value $R_W$ model with a single global $M_H^W$ (model IV) has the lowest AIC and BIC, beating the standard fixed $R_W = 0.386$ model by $|Delta BIC|$ of order $6$ to $18$ depending on the assumed intrinsic LMC scatter, while the fully per-galaxy model wins on raw $chi^2$ but is punished for its 51 parameters. Because model IV yields $M_B = -19.399$ (or $-19.447$) mag rather than the local-ladder value near $-19.25$, the derived $H_0 = 68.06 pm 1.80$ km/s/Mpc lands on the Planck value, and the authors conclude that in this model the Hubble crisis is absent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the change in the Cepheid color coefficient is a sharp step at a single distance of about 16 Mpc, chosen by scanning that distance, rather than a smooth trend with distance or host properties that a two-value fit merely approximates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the two-value $R_W$ model is correct, the local ladder's $H_0$ moves down to about $68$ km/s/Mpc, removing the roughly $4$ sigma disagreement with the CMB sound-horizon calibration without invoking new early-universe physics.
The same shift lowers the calibrated supernova absolute magnitude to about $-19.40$ mag, matching the value obtained from the inverse distance ladder, which would reconcile two independent calibrations of Type Ia supernovae.
A step at $10$–$20$ Mpc corresponds, in a homogeneous universe, to a transition $25$–$70$ million years ago, which the authors connect to proposals of a late change in the strength of gravity of order ten percent.
Because the effect is carried by an empirical color coefficient, it is testable against dust-systematics explanations such as host-galaxy mass steps, which predict a gradual dependence on host properties rather than a sharp distance split.

Reading between the lines

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

The critical distance was found by scanning $D_c$ over $[0.01, 37]$ Mpc and looking for the largest mismatch, so a trials-factor correction would be the natural next check; a look-elsewhere estimate could shrink the quoted significance substantially.
If the true dependence of $R_W$ on distance is smooth (for example a dust-property gradient with host morphology or galactocentric radius), then a two-step fit is a convenient approximation that would bias $H_0$ in the same direction without any physical transition, which makes a fit with a continuously varying $R_W(D)$ the discriminating test.
Independent calibrators that bypass Cepheid colors entirely, such as tip-of-the-red-giant-branch or Mira distances to the same supernova hosts, would show whether the supernova absolute magnitude really sits near $-19.40$ or $-19.25$ mag.
If the step is genuinely temporal rather than spatial, it should appear at the same lookback time in any local probe of standardizable candles, so Tully-Fisher or surface-brightness-fluctuation samples at $20$–$40$ Mpc are an obvious cross-check.

Original abstract

We re-analyze the Cepheid data used to infer the value of $H_0$ by calibrating SnIa. We do not enforce a universal value of the empirical Cepheid calibration parameters $R_W$ (Cepheid Wesenheit color-luminosity parameter) and $M_H^{W}$ (Cepheid Wesenheit H-band absolute magnitude). Instead, we allow for variation of either of these parameters for each individual galaxy. We also consider the case where these parameters have two universal values: one for low galactic distances $D<D_c$ and one for high galactic distances $D>D_c$ where $D_c$ is a critical transition distance. We find hints for a $3\sigma$ level mismatch between the low and high galactic distance parameter values. We then use AIC and BIC criteria to compare and rank the following types of models: Base models: Universal values for $R_W$ and $M_H^{W}$ (no parameter variation), I Individual fitted galactic $R_W$ with a universal fitted $M_H^{W}$, II Universal fixed $R_W$ with individual fitted galactic $M_H^{W}$, III Universal fitted $R_W$ with individual fitted galactic $M_H^{W}$, IV Two universal fitted $R_W$ (near and far) with one universal fitted $M_H^{W}$, V Universal fitted $R_W$ with two universal fitted $M_H^{W}$ (near and far), VI Two universal fitted $R_W$ with two universal fitted $M_H^{W}$ (near and far). We find that the AIC and BIC criteria consistently favor model IV instead of the commonly used Base model where no variation is allowed for the Cepheid empirical parameters. The best fit value of the SnIa absolute magnitude $M_B$ and of $H_0$ implied by the favored model IV is consistent with the inverse distance ladder calibration based on the CMB sound horizon $H_0=67.4\pm 0.5\,km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}$. Thus in the context of the favored model IV the Hubble crisis is not present. This model may imply the presence of a fundamental physics transition taking place at a time more recent than $100\,Myrs$ ago.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. 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.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 7,949 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.28 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.72 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We re-analyze the Cepheid data used to infer the value of $H_0$ by calibrating SnIa. We do not enforce a universal value of the empirical Cepheid calibration parameters $R_W$ (Cepheid Wesenheit color-luminosity parameter) and $M_H^{W}$ (Cepheid Wesenheit H-band absolute magnitude). Instead, we allow for variation of either of these parameters for each individual galaxy. We also consider the case where these parameters have two universal values: one for low galactic distances $D<D_c$ and one for high galactic distances $D>D_c$ where $D_c$ is a critical transition distance. We find hints for a $3\sigma$ level mismatch between the low and high galactic distance parameter values. We then use AIC and BIC criteria to compare and rank the following types of models: Base models: Universal values for $R_W$ and $M_H^{W}$ (no parameter variation), I Individual fitted galactic $R_W$ with a universal fitted $M_H^{W}$, II Universal fixed $R_W$ with individual fitted galactic $M_H^{W}$, III Universal fitted $R_W$ with individual fitted galactic $M_H^{W}$, IV Two universal fitted $R_W$ (near and far) with one universal fitted $M_H^{W}$, V Universal fitted $R_W$ with two universal fitted $M_H^{W}$ (near and far), VI Two universal fitted $R_W$ with two universal fitted $M_H^{W}$ (near and far). We find that the AIC and BIC criteria consistently favor model IV instead of the commonly used Base model where no variation is allowed for the Cepheid empirical parameters. The best fit value of the SnIa absolute magnitude $M_B$ and of $H_0$ implied by the favored model IV is consistent with the inverse distance ladder calibration based on the CMB sound horizon $H_0=67.4\pm 0.5\,km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}$. Thus in the context of the favored model IV the Hubble crisis is not present. This model may imply the presence of a fundamental physics transition taking place at a time more recent than $100\,Myrs$ ago.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We re-analyze the Cepheid data used to infer the value of $H_0$ by calibrating SnIa.	contribution 0.80	0.94	0.02	asserted 0.87
s1	We do not enforce a universal value of the empirical Cepheid calibration parameters $R_W$ (Cepheid Wesenheit color-luminosity parameter) and $M_H^{W}$ (Cepheid Wesenheit H-band absolute magnitude).	method 0.87	0.92	0.04	asserted 0.94
s2	Instead, we allow for variation of either of these parameters for each individual galaxy.	method 0.93	0.93	0.03	asserted 0.97
s3	We also consider the case where these parameters have two universal values: one for low galactic distances $D<D_c$ and one for high galactic distances $D>D_c$ where $D_c$ is a critical transition distance.	method 0.91	0.69	0.04	asserted 0.74
s4	We find hints for a $3\sigma$ level mismatch between the low and high galactic distance parameter values.	result 1.00	0.96	0.08	hedged possibility 0.73
s5	We then use AIC and BIC criteria to compare and rank the following types of models: Base models: Universal values for $R_W$ and $M_H^{W}$ (no parameter variation), I Individual fitted galactic $R_W$ with a universal fitted $M_H^{W}$, II Universal fixed $R_W$ with individual fitted galactic $M_H^{W}$, III Universal fitted $R_W$ with individual fitted galactic $M_H^{W}$, IV Two universal fitted $R_W$ (near and far) with one universal fitted $M_H^{W}$, V Universal fitted $R_W$ with two universal fitted $M_H^{W}$ (near and far), VI Two universal fitted $R_W$ with two universal fitted $M_H^{W}$ (near and far).	method 0.98	0.78	0.04	asserted 0.77
s6	We find that the AIC and BIC criteria consistently favor model IV instead of the commonly used Base model where no variation is allowed for the Cepheid empirical parameters.	result 1.00	0.97	0.37	asserted 1.00
s7	The best fit value of the SnIa absolute magnitude $M_B$ and of $H_0$ implied by the favored model IV is consistent with the inverse distance ladder calibration based on the CMB sound horizon $H_0=67.4\pm 0.5\,km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}$.	result 0.99	0.92	0.18	hedged possibility 0.60
s8	Thus in the context of the favored model IV the Hubble crisis is not present.	interpretation 0.95	0.85	0.63	asserted 0.98
s9	This model may imply the presence of a fundamental physics transition taking place at a time more recent than $100\,Myrs$ ago.	interpretation 1.00	0.42	0.18	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 0.87 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. The Hubble constant as a function of publication date, using a set of different tools. Symbols in orange denote the

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The Hubble constant

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Fitting individual

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6. Fitting individual

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8. The green line represents the

**Figure 10.** FIG. 10. The green lines represent the 68% range of the

**Figure 11.** FIG. 11. Fitting individual

**Figure 12.** FIG. 12. The one dimensional relative probability density values of the color luminosity parameter and the Cepheid absolute

**Figure 13.** FIG. 13. The best fit values of the parameter

**Figure 14.** FIG. 14. The best fit values of the parameter

**Figure 15.** FIG. 15. The ∆AIC and ∆BIC of models with different free parameter set compared to base (subindex 1) and base-SH0ES

**Figure 16.** FIG. 16. The one dimensional relative probability density value of SnIa absolute magnitude

**Figure 17.** FIG. 17. The one dimensional relative probability density value of

Showing 15 of the paper's 17 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:2109.04406 by the authors.

References

Works cited (205)

[1]

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[2]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara, “Challenges for ΛCDM: An update,” (2021), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[3]

https://cosmology.physics.uoi.gr

View on Pith
[4]

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, “Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,” Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[5]

Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk, “In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[6]

Henrietta S. Leavitt, “1777 variables in the Magellanic Clouds,” Harvard Obs. Annals 60, 87–108 (1908)

View on Pith 1908
[7]

Henrietta S. Leavitt and Edward C. Pickering, “Periods of 25 Variable Stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud,” Harvard Obs. Circ. 173, 1–3 (1912)

View on Pith 1912
[8]

Barry F. Madore and Wendy L. Freedman, “The Cepheid distance scale,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 103, 933–957 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[9]

George H. Jacoby, David Branch, Robin Ciardullo, Roger L. Davies, William E. Harris, Michael J. Pierce, Christopher J. Pritchet, John L. Tonry, and Douglas L. Welch, “A Critical Review of Selected Techniques for Measuring Extragalactic Distances,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 104, 599 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[10]

Michael Feast, “Cepheids as Distance Indicators,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 111, 775–793 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[11]

George Wallerstein, “The cepheids of population ii and related stars,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 114, 689–699 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[12]

Allan Sandage and Gustav A. Tammann, “Abso- lute magnitude calibrations of population i and ii cepheids and other pulsating variables in the in- stability strip of the hertzsprung-russell diagram,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44, 93–140 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150612

View on Pith doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150612 2006
[13]

Pascal Fouque, Jesper Storm, and Wolfgang Gieren, “Calibration of the distance scale from Cepheids,” Lect. Notes Phys. 635, 21–44 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0301291

View on Pith 2003
[14]

P. Fouque et al., “A new calibration of Galactic Cepheid Period-Luminosity relations from B to K bands, and a comparison to LMC PL relations,” Astron. Astrophys. 476, 73–81 (2007), arXiv:0709.3255 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[15]

Wendy L. Freedman and Barry F. Madore, “The Hubble 29 Constant,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 673–710 (2010), arXiv:1004.1856 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[16]

Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lu- cas M. Macri, and Dan Scolnic, “Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM,” Astrophys. J. 876, 85 (2019), arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[17]

Adam G. Riess, Lucas Macri, Stefano Casertano, Hu- bert Lampeitl, Henry C. Ferguson, Alexei V. Filip- penko, Saurabh W. Jha, Weidong Li, and Ryan Chornock, “A 3% Solution: Determination of the Hub- ble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope and Wide Field Camera 3,” Astrophys. J. 730, 119 (2011), [Er- ratum: Astrophys.J. 732, 129 (2011)], arXiv:1103.297...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[18]

Adam G. Riess et al., “A 2.4% Determination of the Lo- cal Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016), arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[19]

Gaia Collaboration and A. G. A. Brown et al., “Gaia Early Data Release 3. Summary of the contents and survey properties,” Astron. Astrophys. 649, A1 (2021), arXiv:2012.01533 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[20]

Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, J. Bradley Bowers, Lucas Macri, Joel C. Zinn, and Dan Scolnic, “Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Pre- cision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Con- ﬁrm Tension with ΛCDM,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L6 (2021), arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[21]

W. L. Freedman et al. (HST), “Final results from the Hubble Space Telescope key project to measure the Hubble constant,” Astrophys. J. 553, 47–72 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012376

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[22]

Adam G. Riess et al., “A Redetermination of the Hubble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope from a Dif- ferential Distance Ladder,” Astrophys. J. 699, 539–563 (2009), arXiv:0905.0695 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[23]

Adam G. Riess et al. , “New Parallaxes of Galactic Cepheids from Spatially Scanning the Hubble Space Telescope: Implications for the Hubble Constant,” As- trophys. J. 855, 136 (2018), arXiv:1801.01120 [astro- ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[24]

Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Victoria Scowcroft, Chris Burns, Andy Monson, S. Eric Persson, Mark Seibert, and Jane Rigby, “Carnegie Hubble Pro- gram: A Mid-Infrared Calibration of the Hubble Con- stant,” Astrophys. J. 758, 24 (2012), arXiv:1208.3281 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[25]

D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), “First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: De- termination of cosmological parameters,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175–194 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[26]

D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), “Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: impli- cations for cosmology,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 170, 377 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0603449

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[27]

J. Dunkley et al. (WMAP), “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Likelihoods and Parameters from the WMAP data,” As- trophys. J. Suppl.180, 306–329 (2009), arXiv:0803.0586 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[28]

E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation,” Astrophys. J. Suppl.192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[29]

C. L. Bennett et al. (WMAP), “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 20 (2013), arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[30]

P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[31]

P.A.R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck 2015 results. xiii. cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[32]

G.E. Addison, D.J. Watts, C.L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, and J.L. Weiland, “Elucidating ΛCDM: Impact of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements on the Hubble Constant Discrepancy,” Astrophys. J. 853, 119 (2018), arXiv:1707.06547 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[33]

George Efstathiou, “H0 Revisited,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 440, 1138–1152 (2014), arXiv:1311.3461 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[34]

Wilmar Cardona, Martin Kunz, and Valeria Pettorino, “Determining H0 with Bayesian hyper-parameters,” JCAP 1703, 056 (2017), arXiv:1611.06088 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[35]

Bonnie R. Zhang, Michael J. Childress, Tamara M. Davis, Natallia V. Karpenka, Chris Lidman, Brian P. Schmidt, and Mathew Smith, “A blinded determina- tion of H0 from low-redshift Type Ia supernovae, cali- brated by Cepheid variables,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 2254–2285 (2017), arXiv:1706.07573 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[36]

Brent Follin and Lloyd Knox, “Insensitivity of the dis- tance ladder Hubble constant determination to Cepheid calibration modelling choices,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 477, 4534–4542 (2018), arXiv:1707.01175 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[37]

Stephen M. Feeney, Daniel J. Mortlock, and Nic- col` o Dalmasso, “Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 3861–3882 (2018), arXiv:1707.00007 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[38]

Hao-Yi Wu and Dragan Huterer, “Sample variance in the local measurements of the Hubble constant,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 4946–4955 (2017), arXiv:1706.09723 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[39]

Anton Chudaykin, Dmitry Gorbunov, and Nikita Nedelko, “Combined analysis of Planck and SPTPol data favors the early dark energy models,” JCAP 08, 013 (2020), arXiv:2004.13046 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[40]

G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, “H0 Tension, Phantom Dark Energy and Cosmologi- cal Parameter Degeneracies,” Phys. Rev. D101, 123516 (2020), arXiv:2004.08363 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[41]

Moritz Haslbauer, Indranil Banik, and Pavel Kroupa, “The KBC void and Hubble tension contradict ΛCDM on a Gpc scale − Milgromian dynamics as a possible solution,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 2845–2883 (2020), arXiv:2009.11292 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[42]

Tanvi Karwal and Marc Kamionkowski, “Dark en- ergy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[43]

Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Early Dark Energy Can Resolve 30 The Hubble Tension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[44]

Prateek Agrawal, Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine, David Pin- ner, and Lisa Randall, “Rock ’n’ Roll Solutions to the Hubble Tension,” (2019), arXiv:1904.01016 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[45]

Gen Ye and Yun-Song Piao, “Is the Hubble tension a hint of AdS phase around recombination?” Phys. Rev. D 101, 083507 (2020), arXiv:2001.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[46]

Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, “Reconciling Planck with the local value ofH0 in extended parameter space,” Phys. Lett. B761, 242–246 (2016), arXiv:1606.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[47]

Robert R. Caldwell, William Komp, Leonard Parker, and Daniel A. T. Vanzella, “A Sudden gravita- tional transition,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 023513 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507622

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[48]

Valerio Marra and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “A rapid transition of Geﬀ at zt≃ 0.01 as a possible solution of the Hubble and growth tensions,” Phys. Rev. D 104, L021303 (2021), arXiv:2102.06012 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[49]

Lavrentios Kazantzidis and Leandros Perivolaropou- los, “Is gravity getting weaker at low z? Observa- tional evidence and theoretical implications,” (2019), arXiv:1907.03176 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[50]

G. Alestas and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Late time ap- proaches to the Hubble tension deformingH(z), worsen the growth tension,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 3956 (2021), arXiv:2103.04045 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[51]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “ H0 Crisis: Systematics of distance calibrators or The End of ΛCDM?” https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ0DU88A2ik&t=15s

View on Pith
[52]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “Local deter- mination of the Hubble constant and the decelera- tion parameter,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013028 (2020), arXiv:1906.11814 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[53]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “On the use of the local prior on the absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae in cosmological inference,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 5164–5171 (2021), arXiv:2101.08641 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[54]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “A new method to build the (inverse) distance ladder,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 2630–2644 (2020), arXiv:1910.14125 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[55]

George Alestas, Lavrentios Kazantzidis, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “w−M phantom transition atzt<0.1 as a resolution of the Hubble tension,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 083517 (2021), arXiv:2012.13932 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[56]

L. Kazantzidis, H. Koo, S. Nesseris, L. Perivolaropoulos, and A. Shaﬁeloo, “Hints for possible low redshift oscilla- tion around the best-ﬁtting ΛCDM model in the expan- sion history of the Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 3421–3426 (2021), arXiv:2010.03491 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[57]

for full Pantheon dataset in Eq. (2.5) the Hubble constant can be estimated H0 =c 100.2(MB−M)+5 (5.3) In Table I we show the best ﬁt value of SnIa absolute magnitude MB and the corresponding Hubble constant H0 as derived using the Eq. (5.1) and the Eq. (5.3) (the values in the parentheses) for all cases studied in this paper. Also the one dimensional rela...

View on Pith 2014
[58]

L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Hints of a Lo- cal Matter Underdensity or Modiﬁed Gravity in the Low z Pantheon data,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 023520 (2020), arXiv:2004.02155 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[59]

Luca Amendola, Pier Stefano Corasaniti, and Franco Occhionero, “Time variability of the gravitational con- stant and type Ia supernovae,” (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9907222

View on Pith 1999
[60]

E. Gaztanaga, E. Garcia-Berro, J. Isern, E. Bravo, and I. Dominguez, “Bounds on the possible evolution of the gravitational constant from cosmological type Ia super- novae,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 023506 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0109299

View on Pith 2002
[61]

Bill S. Wright and Baojiu Li, “Type Ia supernovae, standardizable candles, and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 083505 (2018), arXiv:1710.07018 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[62]

E. Garcia-Berro, E. Gaztanaga, J. Isern, O. Benvenuto, and L. Althaus, “On the evolution of cosmological type ia supernovae and the gravitational constant,” (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907440

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[63]

S. Nesseris and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Evolv- ing newton’s constant, extended gravity theories and snia data analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 103511 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602053

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[64]

L. Kazantzidis, L. Perivolaropoulos, and F. Skara, “Constraining power of cosmological observables: blind redshift spots and optimal ranges,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 063537 (2019), arXiv:1812.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[65]

Catherine Heymans et al. , “KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectro- scopic galaxy clustering constraints,” Astron. As- trophys. 646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[66]

Savvas Nesseris, George Pantazis, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Tension and constraints on modiﬁed gravity parametrizations of Geﬀ(z) from growth rate and Planck data,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 023542 (2017), arXiv:1703.10538 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[67]

Luca Amendola, Martin Kunz, Ippocratis D. Saltas, and Ignacy Sawicki, “Fate of Large-Scale Structure in Modiﬁed Gravity After GW170817 and GRB170817A,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131101 (2018), arXiv:1711.04825 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[68]

Radouane Gannouji, Lavrentios Kazantzidis, Leandros Perivolaropoulos, and David Polarski, “Consistency of modiﬁed gravity with a decreasing Geﬀ(z) in a ΛCDM background,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 104044 (2018), arXiv:1809.07034 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[69]

Lavrentios Kazantzidis and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Evolution of thefσ8 tension with the Planck15/ΛCDM determination and implications for modiﬁed grav- ity theories,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 103503 (2018), arXiv:1803.01337 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[70]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Lavrentios Kazantzidis, “Hints of modiﬁed gravity in cosmos and in the lab?” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1942001 (2019), arXiv:1904.09462 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[71]

F. Skara and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Tension of the EG statistic and redshift space distortion data with the Planck - Λ CDM model and implications for weak- ening gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 063521 (2020), arXiv:1911.10609 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[72]

Radouane Gannouji, Leandros Perivolaropoulos, David Polarski, and Foteini Skara, “Weak gravity on a ΛCDM background,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 063509 (2021), arXiv:2011.01517 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[73]

George Alestas, Ioannis Antoniou, and Lean- dros Perivolaropoulos, “Hints for a gravitational constant transition in Tully-Fisher data,” (2021), arXiv:2104.14481 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[74]

Edvard Mortsell, Ariel Goobar, Joel Johansson, and Suhail Dhawan, “The Hubble Tension Bites the Dust: Sensitivity of the Hubble Constant Determination to 31 Cepheid Color Calibration,” (2021), arXiv:2105.11461 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[75]

Scott Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003)

View on Pith 2003
[76]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Accelerating universe: observational status and theoretical implications,” AIP Conf. Proc. 848, 698–712 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0601014

View on Pith 2006
[77]

D. M. Scolnic et al. , “The Complete Light-curve Sam- ple of Spectroscopically Conﬁrmed SNe Ia from Pan- STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Com- bined Pantheon Sample,” Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018), arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[78]

Bradley E. Schaefer, “The Hubble Diagram to Redshift >6 from 69 Gamma-Ray Bursts,” Astrophys. J. 660, 16–46 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612285

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[79]

N. R. Tanvir et al. , “A gamma-ray burst at a redshift of z˜8.2,” Nature 461, 1254–1257 (2009)

View on Pith 2009
[80]

A. Cucchiara et al. , “A Photometric Redshift of z ˜ 9.4 for GRB 090429B,” Astrophys. J. 736, 7 (2011), arXiv:1105.4915 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[81]

J. S. Wang, F. Y. Wang, K. S. Cheng, and Z. G. Dai, “Measuring dark energy with theEiso−Ep correlation of gamma-ray bursts using model-independent methods,” Astron. Astrophys. 585, A68 (2016), arXiv:1509.08558 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[82]

Marek Demianski, Ester Piedipalumbo, Disha Sawant, and Lorenzo Amati, “Cosmology with gamma-ray bursts: I. The Hubble diagram through the calibrated Ep,i - Eiso correlation,” Astron. Astrophys. 598, A112 (2017), arXiv:1610.00854 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[83]

Chen-Han Tang, Yong-Feng Huang, Jin-Jun Geng, and Zhi-Bin Zhang, “Statistical Study of Gamma-Ray Bursts with a Plateau Phase in the X-ray Afterglow,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 245, 1 (2019), arXiv:1905.07929 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[84]

M. M. Phillips, “The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 413, L105–L108 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[85]

Eoin ´O. Colg´ ain, “A hint of matter underdensity at low z?” JCAP 09, 006 (2019), arXiv:1903.11743 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[86]

Domenico Sapone, Savvas Nesseris, and Carlos A. P. Bengaly, “Is there any measurable redshift dependence on the SN Ia absolute magnitude?” Phys. Dark Univ. 32, 100814 (2021), arXiv:2006.05461 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[87]

Hanwool Koo, Arman Shaﬁeloo, Ryan E. Keeley, and Benjamin L’Huillier, “Model-independent Con- straints on Type Ia Supernova Light-curve Hyperpa- rameters and Reconstructions of the Expansion His- tory of the Universe,” Astrophys. J. 899, 9 (2020), arXiv:2001.10887 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[88]

Vladimir V. Lukovi´ c, Balakrishna S. Haridasu, and Nicola Vittorio, “Exploring the evidence for a large local void with supernovae Ia data,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491, 2075–2087 (2020), arXiv:1907.11219 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[89]

Isaac Tutusaus, Brahim Lamine, and Alain Blanchard, “Model-independent cosmic acceleration and redshift- dependent intrinsic luminosity in type-Ia supernovae,” Astron. Astrophys. 625, A15 (2019), arXiv:1803.06197 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[90]

Isaac Tutusaus, Brahim Lamine, Arnaud Dupays, and Alain Blanchard, “Is cosmic acceleration proven by lo- cal cosmological probes?” Astron. Astrophys. 602, A73 (2017), arXiv:1706.05036 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[91]

Persis S. Drell, Thomas J. Loredo, and Ira Wasserman, “Type Ia supernovae, evolution, and the cosmological constant,” Astrophys. J. 530, 593 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9905027

View on Pith 2000
[92]

Beatrice M. Tinsley, “Evolution of the Stars and Gas in Galaxies,” Astroph. J. 151, 547 (1968)

View on Pith 1968
[93]

Yijung Kang, Young-Wook Lee, Young-Lo Kim, Chul Chung, and Chang Hee Ree, “Early-type Host Galax- ies of Type Ia Supernovae. II. Evidence for Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology,” Astrophys. J.889, 8 (2020), arXiv:1912.04903 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[94]

B. M. Rose, P. M. Garnavich, and M. A. Berg, “Think Global, Act Local: The Inﬂuence of Environment Age and Host Mass on Type Ia Supernova Light Curves,” Astrophys. J. 874, 32 (2019), arXiv:1902.01433 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[95]

D. O. Jones et al., “Should Type Ia Supernova Distances be Corrected for their Local Environments?” Astrophys. J. 867, 108 (2018), arXiv:1805.05911 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[96]

M. Rigault et al. (Nearby Supernova Factory), “Strong Dependence of Type Ia Supernova Standardization on the Local Speciﬁc Star Formation Rate,” Astron. As- trophys. 644, A176 (2020), arXiv:1806.03849 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[97]

Young-Lo Kim, Mathew Smith, Mark Sullivan, and Young-Wook Lee, “Environmental Dependence of Type Ia Supernova Luminosities from a Sample without a Local-Global Diﬀerence in Host Star Formation,” As- troph. J. 854, 24 (2018), arXiv:1801.01192 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[98]

A. Sandage, G.A. Tammann, A. Saha, B. Reindl, F.D. Macchetto, and N. Panagia, “The Hubble Con- stant: A Summary of the HST Program for the Lu- minosity Calibration of Type Ia Supernovae by Means of Cepheids,” Astrophys. J. 653, 843–860 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603647

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[99]

G. Fritz Benedict, Barbara E. McArthur, Michael W. Feast, Thomas G. Barnes, Thomas E. Harrison, Richard J. Patterson, John W. Menzies, Jacob L. Bean, and Wendy L. Freedman, “Hubble Space Telescope Fine Guidance Sensor Parallaxes of Galactic Cepheid Vari- able Stars: Period-Luminosity Relations,” Astron. J. 133, 1810–1827 (2007), [Erratum: Astron.J. 133, 2...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[100]

Floor van Leeuwen, Michael W. Feast, Patricia A. Whitelock, and Clifton D. Laney, “Cepheid Parallaxes and the Hubble Constant,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 379, 723–737 (2007), arXiv:0705.1592 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[101]

Stefano Casertano et al., “Parallax of Galactic Cepheids from Spatially Scanning the Wide Field Camera 3 on the Hubble Space Telescope: The Case of SS Canis Ma- joris,” Astrophys. J. 825, 11 (2016), arXiv:1512.09371 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[102]

Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Jay Anderson, John Mackenty, and Alexei V. Filippenko, “Parallax Beyond a Kiloparsec from Spatially Scanning the Wide Field Camera 3 on the Hubble Space Telescope,” Astrophys. J. 785, 161 (2014), arXiv:1401.0484 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[103]

L. Lindegren, U. Lammers, U. Bastian, and et al., “Gaia Data Release 1. Astrometry: one billion po- sitions, two million proper motions and parallaxes,” 32 Astron. Astrophys. 595, A4 (2016), arXiv:1609.04303 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[104]

Adam G. Riess et al. , “Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant,” As- trophys. J. 861, 126 (2018), arXiv:1804.10655 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[105]

G. Pietrzy´ nski, D. Graczyk, A. Gallenne, W. Gieren, I. B. Thompson, B. Pilecki, P. Karczmarek, M. G´ orski, K. Suchomska, M. Taormina, B. Zgirski, P. Wielg´ orski, Z. Ko laczkowski, P. Konorski, S. Vil- lanova, N. Nardetto, P. Kervella, F. Bresolin, R. P. Kudritzki, J. Storm, R. Smolec, and W. Narloch, “A distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud that is p...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[106]

J. R. Herrnstein, J. M. Moran, L. J. Greenhill, P. J. Diamond, M. Inoue, N. Nakai, M. Miyoshi, C. Henkel, and A. Riess, “A Geometric distance to the galaxy NGC 4258 from orbital motions in a nuclear gas disk,” Nature 400, 539–541 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907013

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[107]

E. M. L. Humphreys, Mark J. Reid, Jim M. Moran, Lin- coln J. Greenhill, and Alice L. Argon, “Toward a New Geometric Distance to the Active Galaxy NGC 4258. III. Final Results and the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 775, 13 (2013), arXiv:1307.6031 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[108]

M.J. Reid, D.W. Pesce, and A.G. Riess, “An Improved Distance to NGC 4258 and its Implications for the Hub- ble Constant,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 886, L27 (2019), arXiv:1908.05625 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[109]

G. Pietrzy´ nskiet al. , “An eclipsing binary distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud accurate to 2 per cent,” Na- ture 495, 76–79 (2013), arXiv:1303.2063 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[110]

Siyang Li, Adam G. Riess, Michael P. Busch, Stefano Casertano, Lucas M. Macri, and Wenlong Yuan, “A sub-2% Distance to M31 from Photometrically Homo- geneous Near-Infrared Cepheid Period-Luminosity Re- lations Measured with the Hubble Space Telescope,” (2021), arXiv:2107.08029 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[111]

B. T. Draine, “Interstellar dust grains,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 241–289 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0304489

View on Pith 2003
[112]

Bradley W. Carroll and Dale A. Ostlie, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics , 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

View on Pith 2017
[113]

B. F. Madore, “The period-luminosity relation. IV. In- trinsic relations and reddenings for the Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheids.” Astroph. J. 253, 575–579 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[114]

Edward L. Fitzpatrick, “Correcting for the eﬀects of in- terstellar extinction,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 111, 63– 75 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9809387

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[115]

R. McGonegal, C. W. McAlary, B. F. Madore, and R. A. McLaren, “The Cepheid distance scale - A new application for infrared photometry,” Astroph. J. 257, L33–L36 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[116]

Wendy L. Freedman, Christine D. Wilson, and Barry F. Madore, “New Cepheid Distances to Nearby Galaxies Based on BVRI CCD Photometry. II. The Local Group Galaxy M33,” Astroph. J. 372, 455 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[117]

Lucas M. Macri et al., “NICMOS observations of extra- galactic Cepheids. 1. Photometry database and a test of the standard extinction law,” Astrophys. J. 549, 721 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102125

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[118]

Piotr Wielg´ orski, Grzegorz Pietrzy´ nski, Wolfgang Gieren, Marek G´ orski, Rolf-Peter Kudritzki, Bart lomiej Zgirski, Fabio Bresolin, Jesper Storm, Noriyuki Mat- sunaga, Dariusz Graczyk, and Igor Soszy´ nski, “A Pre- cision Determination of the Eﬀect of Metallicity on Cepheid Absolute Magnitudes in VIJHK Bands from Magellanic Cloud Cepheids,” Astroph. J...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[119]

W. Gieren, J. Storm, P. Konorski, M. G´ orski, B. Pilecki, I. Thompson, G. Pietrzy´ nski, D. Graczyk, T. G. Barnes, P. Fouqu´ e, N. Nardetto, A. Gallenne, P. Karczmarek, K. Suchomska, P. Wielg´ orski, M. Taormina, and B. Zgirski, “The eﬀect of metallicity on Cepheid period- luminosity relations from a Baade-Wesselink analysis of Cepheids in the Milky Way ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[120]

M. A. T. Groenewegen, “The Cepheid period- luminosity-metallicity relation based on Gaia DR2 data,” Astron. Astrophys. 619, A8 (2018), arXiv:1808.05796 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[121]

V. Ripepi, G. Catanzaro, R. Molinaro, M. Marconi, G. Clementini, F. Cusano, G. De Somma, S. Lec- cia, I. Musella, and V. Testa, “Period-luminosity- metallicity relation of classical Cepheids,” Astron. As- trophys. 642, A230 (2020), arXiv:2008.04608 [astro- ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[122]

Louise Breuval, Pierre Kervella, Piotr Wielg´ orski, Wolf- gang Gieren, Dariusz Graczyk, Boris Trahin, Grzegorz Pietrzy´ nski, Fr´ ed´ eric Arenou, Behnam Javanmardi, and Bart lomiej Zgirski, “The Inﬂuence of Metallicity on the Leavitt Law from Geometrical Distances of Milky Way and Magellanic Cloud Cepheids,” Astroph. J.913, 38 (2021), arXiv:2103.10894 [...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[123]

Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Dylan Hatt, Taylor J. Hoyt, In Sung Jang, Rachael L. Beaton, Christopher R. Burns, Myung Gyoon Lee, Andrew J. Monson, Jillian R. Neeley, M. M. Phillips, Jeﬀrey A. Rich, and Mark Seibert, “The carnegie-chicago hub- ble program. VIII. an independent determination of the hubble constant based on the tip of the red giant br...

View on Pith 2019
[124]

Adam G. Riess, Wenlong Yuan, Stefano Casertano, Lucas M. Macri, and Dan Scolnic, “The Accuracy of the Hubble Constant Measurement Veriﬁed through Cepheid Amplitudes,” Astrophys. J. 896, L43 (2020), arXiv:2005.02445 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[125]

Wendy L. Freedman, “Measurements of the Hub- ble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,” (2021), arXiv:2106.15656 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[126]

J. D. Fernie, “The Structure of the Cepheid Instability Strip,” Astroph. J. 354, 295 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[127]

Allan Sandage and G. A. Tammann, “Temperature Dif- ferences in the Cepheid Instability Strip Require Dif- ferences in the Period-Luminosity Relation in Slope and Zero Point,” Astrophys. J. 686, 779–784 (2008), arXiv:0803.3836 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[128]

Barry F. Madore, Wendy L. Freedman, and Sandy Moak, “A Method for Improving Galactic Cepheid Red- denings and Distances,” Astroph. J. 842, 42 (2017)

View on Pith 2017
[129]

Ondrej Pejcha and Christopher S. Kochanek, “A Global Physical Model for Cepheids,” Astrophys. J. 748, 107 (2012), arXiv:1112.3038 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[130]

Gustav A. Tammann, Bernd Reindl, Frank Thim, Ab- hijit Saha, and Allan Sandage, “Cepheids, Supernovae, 33 H0, and the Age of the Universe,” in A New Era in Cosmology, Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Confer- ence Series, Vol. 283, edited by Nigel Metcalfe and Tom Shanks (2002) p. 258, arXiv:astro-ph/0112489 [astro- ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[131]

G. A. Tammann, A. Sandage, and Bernd Reindl, “New period - luminosity and period - color relations of clas- sical Cepheids: 1. Cepheids in the Galaxy,” Astron. As- trophys. 404, 423–448 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303378

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[132]

A. Sandage, G. A. Tammann, and Bernd Reindl, “New period - luminosity and period - color relations of classi- cal Cepheids: 2. Cepheids in LMC,” Astron. Astrophys. 424, 43–71 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402424

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[133]

Cow-Choong Ngeow, Shashi M. Kanbur, Sergei Niko- laev, John Buonaccorsi, Kem H. Cook, and Douglas L. Welch, “Further empirical evidence for the non-linearity of the period-luminosity relations as seen in the Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheids,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 363, 831–846 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507601

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[134]

A. Sandage, G. A. Tammann, and B. Reindl, “New period-luminosity and period-color relations of classical Cepheids: III. Cepheids in SMC,” Astron. Astrophys. 493, 471–479 (2009), arXiv:0810.1780 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[135]

Anupam Bhardwaj, Shashi M. Kanbur, Lucas M. Macri, Harinder P. Singh, Chow-Choong Ngeow, and Emille E. O. Ishida, “Large Magellanic Cloud Near-Infrared Synoptic Survey - III. A statistical study of non-linearity in the Leavitt Laws,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 457, 1644–1665 (2016), arXiv:1601.00953 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[136]

H. L. Johnson and J. Borgman, “The law of interstellar extinction,” BAN 17, 115 (1963)

View on Pith 1963
[137]

Kevin Krisciunas, Jose Luis Prieto, Peter M. Garnavich, Jessica-Lynn G. Riley, Armin Rest, Christopher Stubbs, and Russet McMillan, “Photometry of the type ia su- pernovae 1999cc, 1999cl, and 2000cf,” Astron. J. 131, 1639–1647 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511162

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[138]

Serena Nobili and Ariel Goobar, “The colour-lightcurve shape relation of Type Ia supernovae and the red- dening law,” Astron. Astrophys. 487, 19 (2008), arXiv:0712.1155 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[139]

M. M. Fausnaugh, C. S. Kochanek, J. R. Gerke, L. M. Macri, A. G. Riess, and K. Z. Stanek, “The Cepheid distance to the maser-host galaxy NGC 4258: studying systematics with the Large Binocular Telescope,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, 3597– 3619 (2015), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/450/4/3597/5831120/stv881.pdf

View on Pith 2015
[140]

Ariel Goobar, “Low R v from circumstellar dust around supernovae,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 686, L103– L106 (2008), arXiv:0809.1094 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[141]

Gaston Folatelli et al. , “The Carnegie Supernova Project: Analysis of the First Sample of Low-Redshift Type-Ia Supernovae,” Astron. J. 139, 120–144 (2010), arXiv:0910.3317 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[142]

Hubert Lampeitl et al. (SDSS), “The Eﬀect of Host Galaxies on Type Ia Supernovae in the SDSS-II Su- pernova Survey,” Astrophys. J. 722, 566–576 (2010), arXiv:1005.4687 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[143]

A. Goobar et al. , “The Rise of SN 2014J in the Nearby Galaxy M82,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 784, L12 (2014), arXiv:1402.0849 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[144]

R. Amanullah et al. , “The peculiar extinction law of SN2014J measured with The Hubble Space Telescope,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 788, L21 (2014), arXiv:1404.2595 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[145]

R. Amanullah et al. , “Diversity in extinction laws of Type Ia supernovae measured between 0.2 and 2 µm,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453, 3300–3328 (2015), arXiv:1504.02101 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[146]

Aleksandar Cikota, Susana Deustua, and Francine Mar- leau, “Determining Type Ia Supernovae Host galaxy extinction probabilities and a statistical approach to estimating the absorption-to-reddening ratio RV ,” As- trophys. J. 819, 152 (2016), arXiv:1601.05659 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[147]

Rahul Biswas et al. , “Two c’s in a pod: Cosmology independent measurement of the Type Ia supernova colour-luminosity relation with a sibling pair,” (2021), arXiv:2103.16978 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith arXiv 2021
[148]

Jason A. Cardelli, Geoﬀrey C. Clayton, and John S. Mathis, “The relationship between infrared, optical, and ultraviolet extinction,” Astrophys. J. 345, 245–256 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[149]

James E. O’Donnell, “Rv-dependent Optical and Near- Ultraviolet Extinction,” Astroph. J. 422, 158 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[150]

David M. Nataf et al. , “Interstellar extinction curve variations towards the inner Milky Way: a challenge to observational cosmology,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 456, 2692–2706 (2016), arXiv:1510.01321 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[151]

Edvard Mortsell, Ariel Goobar, Joel Johansson, and Suhail Dhawan, “The Hubble Tension Revisited: Ad- ditional Local Distance Ladder Uncertainties,” (2021), arXiv:2106.09400 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[152]

G. Efstathiou, “A Lockdown Perspective on the Hub- ble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team),” (2020), arXiv:2007.10716 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[153]

Samantha L. Hoﬀmann et al., “Optical Identiﬁcation of Cepheids in 19 Host Galaxies of Type Ia Supernovae and NGC 4258 with the Hubble Space Telescope,” Astro- phys. J. 830, 10 (2016), arXiv:1607.08658 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[154]

Julien Guy, P. Astier, S. Nobili, N. Regnault, and R. Pain (SNLS), “SALT: A Spectral adaptive Light curve Template for Type Ia supernovae,” Astron. As- trophys. 443, 781–791 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506583

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[155]

Julien Guy et al. (SNLS), “SALT2: Using distant su- pernovae to improve the use of Type Ia supernovae as distance indicators,” Astron. Astrophys. 466, 11–21 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701828

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[156]

J. Guy et al. (SNLS), “The Supernova Legacy Survey 3- year sample: Type Ia Supernovae photometric distances and cosmological constraints,” Astron. Astrophys. 523, A7 (2010), arXiv:1010.4743 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[157]

J. Mosher et al., “Cosmological Parameter Uncertainties from SALT-II Type Ia Supernova Light Curve Models,” Astrophys. J. 793, 16 (2014), arXiv:1401.4065 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[158]

http://supernovae.in2p3.fr/salt/doku.php

View on Pith
[159]

M. Betoule et al. (SDSS), “Improved cosmological con- straints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples,” Astron. Astrophys.568, A22 (2014), arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[160]

M. Romaniello, F. Primas, M. Mottini, S. Pedicelli, B. Lemasle, G. Bono, P. Francois, M. A. T. Groe- newegen, and C. D. Laney, “The inﬂuence of chemi- cal composition on the properties of Cepheid stars. II- The iron content,” Astron. Astrophys. 488, 731 (2008), arXiv:0807.1196 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[161]

Samyaday Choudhury, Annapurni Subrama- 34 niam, and Andrew A. Cole, “Photometric metallicity map of the Large Magellanic Cloud,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 455, 1855–1880 (2015), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/455/2/1855/18513939/stv2414.pdf

View on Pith 2015
[162]

https://github.com/FOTEINISKARA/Cepheid_SnIa_ Calibrator_Data_Transition

View on Pith
[163]

H. Jeﬀreys, Theory of probability , 3rd ed. (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1961)

View on Pith 1961
[164]

Andrew R. Liddle, “How many cosmological param- eters?” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 351, L49–L53 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0401198 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[165]

Savvas Nesseris and Juan Garcia-Bellido, “Is the Jeﬀreys’ scale a reliable tool for Bayesian model comparison in cosmology?” JCAP 08, 036 (2013), arXiv:1210.7652 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[166]

Alexander Bonilla Rivera and Jorge Enrique Garc´ ıa- Farieta, “Exploring the Dark Universe: constraints on dynamical Dark Energy models from CMB, BAO and growth rate measurements,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1950118 (2019), arXiv:1605.01984 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[167]

Judit P´ erez-Romero and Savvas Nesseris, “Cosmolog- ical constraints and comparison of viable f(R) mod- els,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 023525 (2018), arXiv:1710.05634 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[168]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “Impact of the cos- mic variance on H0 on cosmological analyses,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 023537 (2018), arXiv:1805.09900 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[169]

H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identi- ﬁcation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716–723

View on Pith
[170]

Gideon Schwarz, “Estimating the Dimension of a Model,” Annals Statist. 6, 461–464 (1978)

View on Pith 1978
[171]

Andrew R Liddle, “Information criteria for astrophysi- cal model selection,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377, L74–L78 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701113 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[172]

Fabiola Arevalo, Antonella Cid, and Jorge Moya, “AIC and BIC for cosmological interacting scenarios,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 565 (2017), arXiv:1610.09330 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[173]

Martin Kerscher and Jochen Weller, “On Model Se- lection in Cosmology,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 9, 1 (2019), arXiv:1901.07726 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[174]

Moncy V. John and J. V. Narlikar, “Comparison of cos- mological models using bayesian theory,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 043506 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111122

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[175]

K. P Burnham and D. R. Anderson, Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, 2002)

View on Pith 2002
[176]

K. P Burnham and D. R. Anderson, “Multimodel Infer- ence: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection,” Sociol. Method. 33, 261 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[177]

Nariaki Sugiura, “Further analysts of the data by akaike’ s information criterion and the ﬁ- nite corrections,” Communications in Statis- tics - Theory and Methods 7, 13–26 (1978), https://doi.org/10.1080/03610927808827599

View on Pith doi:10.1080/03610927808827599 1978
[178]

Rub´ en Arjona, Wilmar Cardona, and Savvas Nesseris, “Unraveling the eﬀective ﬂuid approach forf(R) models in the subhorizon approximation,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 043516 (2019), arXiv:1811.02469 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[179]

Mehdi Rezaei, Mohammad Malekjani, and Joan Sola, “Can dark energy be expressed as a power series of the Hubble parameter?” Phys. Rev. D 100, 023539 (2019), arXiv:1905.00100 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[180]

Dillon Brout and Daniel Scolnic, “It’s Dust: Solving the Mysteries of the Intrinsic Scatter and Host-galaxy Dependence of Standardized Type Ia Supernova Bright- nesses,” Astrophys. J. 909, 26 (2021), arXiv:2004.10206 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[181]

J. et al. Johansson, “Near-IR Type Ia SN distances: host galaxy extinction and mass-step corrections revisited,” (2021), arXiv:2105.06236 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[182]

Mario Hamuy, M. M. Phillips, Jose Maza, Nicholas B. Suntzeﬀ, R. A. Schommer, and R. Aviles, “A Hubble Diagram of Distant Type 1a Supernovae,” Astron. J. 109, 1 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[183]

Mark Sullivan et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), “The Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae as a func- tion of host galaxy morphology,” Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 340, 1057 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0211444

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[184]

M. J. Childress et al. , “Host Galaxy Properties and Hubble Residuals of Type Ia Supernovae from the Nearby Supernova Factory,” Astrophys. J. 770, 108 (2013), arXiv:1304.4720 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[185]

P. Wiseman et al. (DES), “Supernova Host Galaxies in the Dark Energy Survey: I. Deep Coadds, Photometry, and Stellar Masses,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 4040–4060 (2020), arXiv:2001.02640 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[186]

L. Kelsey et al. (DES), “Skip Nav Destination The eﬀect of environment on Type Ia supernovae in the Dark Energy Survey three-year cosmological sample,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 4861–4876 (2021), arXiv:2008.12101 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[187]

Sara Mazrouei, Rebecca R. Ghent, William F. Bottke, Alex H. Parker, and Thomas M. Gernon, “Earth and moon impact ﬂux increased at the end of the paleozoic,” Science 363, 253–257 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[188]

P. Schulte et al., “The chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the cretaceous-paleogene boundary,” Science 327, 1214–1218 (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[189]

Paul R. Renne, Alan L. Deino, Frederik J. Hilgen, Klau- dia F. Kuiper, Darren F. Mark, William S. Mitchell, Leah E. Morgan, Roland Mundil, and Jan Smit, “Time scales of critical events around the cretaceous-paleogene boundary,” Science 339, 684–687 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[190]

John Alroy, “Dynamics of origination and extinction in the marine fossil record,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 11536–11542 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[191]

Luis W. Alvarez, Walter Alvarez, Frank Asaro, and He- len V. Michel, “Extraterrestrial cause for the cretaceous- tertiary extinction,” Science 208, 1095–1108 (1980)

View on Pith 1980
[192]

Luis W. Alvarez, “Experimental Evidence that an As- teroid Impact Led to the Extinction of Many Species 65 Million Years Ago,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 80, 627–642 (1983)

View on Pith 1983
[193]

Rachael L. Beaton et al. , “The Carnegie-Chicago Hub- ble Program. I. An Independent Approach to the Ex- tragalactic Distance Scale Using only Population II Distance Indicators,” Astrophys. J. 832, 210 (2016), arXiv:1604.01788 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[194]

S. Cassisi and M. Salaris, “A critical investigation on the discrepancy between the observational and theoretical red giant luminosity function bump,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 285, 593 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9702029

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[195]

In Sung Jang and Myung Gyoon Lee, “The Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to Type Ia Supernova Host Galaxies. III. NGC 4038/39 and NGC 5584,” Astroph. 35 J. 807, 133 (2015), arXiv:1506.03089 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[196]

In Sung Jang and Myung Gyoon Lee, “The Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to Typa Ia Supernova Host Galaxies. V. NGC 3021, NGC 3370, and NGC 1309 and the Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 836, 74 (2017), arXiv:1702.01118 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[197]

Dylan Hatt et al. , “The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Pro- gram. IV. The Distance to NGC 4424, NGC 4526, and NGC 4356 via the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,” As- trophys. J. 861, 104 (2018), arXiv:1806.02900 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[198]

Dylan Hatt et al. , “The Carnegie–Chicago Hubble Pro- gram. V. The Distances to NGC 1448 and NGC 1316 via the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,” Astrophys. J. 866, 145 (2018), arXiv:1809.01741 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[199]

Wendy L. Freedman et al. , “The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determina- tion of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,” (2019), 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73, arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[200]

Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Taylor Hoyt, In Sung Jang, Rachael Beaton, Myung Gyoon Lee, An- drew Monson, Jill Neeley, and Jeﬀrey Rich, “Calibra- tion of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB),” (2020), arXiv:2002.01550 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[201]

Sidney R. Coleman, “The Fate of the False Vacuum

View on Pith
[202]

Semiclassical Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 15, 2929–2936 (1977), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

View on Pith 1977
[203]

Amol V. Patwardhan and George M. Fuller, “Late- time vacuum phase transitions: Connecting sub-eV scale physics with cosmological structure formation,” Phys. Rev. D90, 063009 (2014), arXiv:1401.1923 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[204]

Curtis G. Callan, Jr. and Sidney R. Coleman, “The Fate of the False Vacuum. 2. First Quantum Corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 16, 1762–1768 (1977)

View on Pith 1977
[205]

Michael Doran and Georg Robbers, “Early dark en- ergy cosmologies,” JCAP 06, 026 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0601544

View on Pith 2006

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

Late-transition vs smooth $H(z)$ deformation models for the resolution of the Hubble crisis
astro-ph.CO 2021-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A late, sharp transition in supernova absolute magnitude at z about 0.01 fits CMB, BAO, and supernova data better than smooth dark-energy models and can reconcile local and CMB Hubble constant estimates.
Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant
astro-ph.CO 2021-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A cosmological constant that switches sign at redshift z about 2.4 fits CMB+BAO data and partially eases the Hubble, M_B, Ly-alpha, and S8 tensions, though Bayesian evidence still mildly favors standard Lambda-CDM.
Multidimensionality of the Hubble tension: the roles of $\Omega_m$ and $\omega_c$
astro-ph.CO 2024-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

With the matter density and baryon density calibrated, any model that raises the Hubble constant must also raise the cold dark matter density and, under standard assumptions, the clustering amplitude S8.
Seven hints that early-time new physics alone is not sufficient to solve the Hubble tension
astro-ph.CO 2023-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Seven independent low-redshift probes each leave a residual roughly two-sigma mismatch with local Hubble constant measurements, so pre-recombination new physics alone cannot close the Hubble tension.
On the evolution of the Hubble constant with the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: a feasibility study for GRB-cosmology in 2030
astro-ph.CO 2022-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Binning the Pantheon supernovae into three redshift slices yields a mild decrease of the Hubble constant with redshift, eta about 0.01, significant at 2 sigma in flat LambdaCDM and 5.8 sigma in w0waCDM under a tight p...

Show 1 more citing papers

$\Lambda$CDM Tensions: Localising Missing Physics through Consistency Checks
astro-ph.CO 2024-02 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Fitting flat Lambda-CDM separately in redshift bins and finding that H0 falls and Omega_m rises with effective redshift would mean the background model is broken, and several independent compilations reportedly show e...

How the literature uses it

47 arXiv papers cite this in 67 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 citing it · 39 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

[ref] and [ref] did not include the color errors, which our analysis shows leads to an underestimate of the values of $R$ and their uncertainties for nearly all SN hosts.

A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km/s/Mpc Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team · Errors in Color and Fitting · contest 0.93

Builds on it 1 paper

Such an analysis which may be implemented once the full Pantheon+ dataset becomes publicly available will allow the more detailed search for signatures of a transition for redshifts $z≲0.01$ extending the analysis of [ref] .

Is the Hubble crisis connected with the extinction of dinosaurs? · Conclusion · 0.87

Compares with it 1 paper

This value closely aligns with previous estimates of a sudden change in SnIa luminosity distance found in [ref] , which predict a transition scale of approximately $20 Mpc$.

Metastable Cosmological Constant and Gravitational Bubbles: Ultra-Late-Time Transitions in Modified Gravity · Observational signatures of a gravitational transition: A review · 0.98

Cites it as support 6 papers

A recent analysis [ref] has also indicated that if such a transition is allowed in the analysis of the Cepheid calibrator data then not only is it favored by the data but it also leads to a resolution of the Hubble crisis by decreasing the best fit SnIa absolute magnitude $M$ to a value consistent with the inverse distance ladder approach where $M$ is calibrated by the CMB implied sound horizon scale.

Is the Hubble crisis connected with the extinction of dinosaurs? · Observational Constraints on the Gravitational Transition · 0.97
This effect could also provide a resolution of the Hubble tension [ref] since the value of the SnIa absolute magnitudes is closely connected and degenerate with the measured Hubble parameter $H_0$.

On the isotropy of SnIa absolute magnitudes in the Pantheon+ and SH0ES samples · Discussion-Conclusion · 1.00
In summary, while a violation of FLRW in the local Universe $z ≲0.1$ seems compelling [ref] , and can impact the distance ladder [ref] , the prospect of resolving $H_0$ through relaxing FLRW currently seems distant.

$\Lambda$CDM Tensions: Localising Missing Physics through Consistency Checks · Cosmological Bedrock: GR + FLRW · 0.97

Cites it as background 15 papers

* Ultralate time models: These models [ref] assume that there is a physics or environmental change between the second and third rungs of the distance ladder i.e., that the Cepheid calibrated SnIa are not the same as the Hubble flow SnIa either due to a change of the physical laws or due to some change in their structure or environment (dust, metallicity etc).

Metastable Cosmological Constant and Gravitational Bubbles: Ultra-Late-Time Transitions in Modified Gravity · Introduction · 0.92
To date it is still a mystery, although many phenomenological solutions have been proposed that can remedy or even alleviate the tension [ref] , including the early dark energy (EDE) perspective [ref] , see also [ref] for a recent review and several proposals for abrupt physics changes before $70-150$Myrs [ref] .

Early Dark Energy with Power-law F(R) Gravity · Introduction · 0.90
A fourth approach related to the previous one is based on a possible change of the physical laws (e.g. a gravitational transition [ref] ) during the past $200 Myrs$ ($z≲0.01$) when the light of the Cepheid calibrator hosts was emitted [ref] .

A reanalysis of the latest SH0ES data for $H_0$: Effects of new degrees of freedom on the Hubble tension · The current status of the Hubble tension and its four assumptions · 0.91

What it cites · 143 sentences without a confident label

Builds on 1 paper

In the present study we reproduce and extend the analysis of Ref. [ref] by considering a varying among individual galaxies color-luminosity relation and (in a separate analysis) allowing the Cepheid absolute magnitude $M_H^W$ to vary among individual galaxies instead of enforcing a universal absolute magnitude.

Sensitivity of the Hubble Constant Determination to Cepheid Calibration · INTRODUCTION · 1.00

Uses the method or tool of 13 papers

We first allow, as done in Ref. [ref] , the parameter $R_W$ to vary between galaxies and we consider a global value of the Cepheid absolute magnitude $M_H^W$.

Sensitivity of the Hubble Constant Determination to Cepheid Calibration · Case I: Fitting individual $R_W$ and global $M_H^W$ · 0.94
Following the same formulation used by the SH$0$ES team [ref] in order to minimize the impact of extinction correction uncertainties for distance measurements and determination of the Hubble constant $H_0$, we use the replacement $E(V-I) →V-I$ in Eq. ([ref]), the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) NIR H-band and the reddening-free "Wesenheit" magnitudes [ref] m_H^W≡m_H-R_W(V-I)=μ+M_H^W+b_W[P]+Z_W[M/H]

Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM · Cepheid calibration · 0.99
Following the same formulation used by the SH$0$ES team [ref] in order to minimize the impact of extinction correction uncertainties for distance measurements and determination of the Hubble constant $H_0$, we use the replacement $E(V-I) →V-I$ in Eq. ([ref]), the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) NIR H-band and the reddening-free "Wesenheit" magnitudes [ref] m_H^W≡m_H-R_W(V-I)=μ+M_H^W+b_W[P]+Z_W[M/H]

A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant · Cepheid calibration · 0.99

Uses data or values from 13 papers

For 74 MW Cepheids including GAIA parallax measurements we use the dataset from Table 1 in Ref. [ref] and for 70 LMC Cepheids we use the dataset from Table 2 in Ref. [ref] .

Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM · Datasets · 1.00
For 74 MW Cepheids including GAIA parallax measurements we use the dataset from Table 1 in Ref. [ref] and for 70 LMC Cepheids we use the dataset from Table 2 in Ref. [ref] .

Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with LambdaCDM · Datasets · 1.00
| c | c | c | c | c | c | c |c|cm0.0001| WFC3-IR data for 1486 Cepheids in the anchor galaxy NGC 4258 and in the host galaxies from Table 4 in Ref. [ref] .

A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant · DATA USED IN THE ANALYSIS · 1.00

Compares with 5 papers

Fitting individual parameters of galaxies $R_W,i$ to Cepheid data as derived from our work and from Ref. [ref] correspond to red and blue points respectively.

Sensitivity of the Hubble Constant Determination to Cepheid Calibration · Case I: Fitting individual $R_W$ and global $M_H^W$ · 0.99
In this case we obtain the best fit value of the parameter $R_W=0.310±0.021$ which is smaller than the global fixed value $R_W=0.386$ used by Refs. [ref] .

Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with LambdaCDM · Case III: Fitted individual $M_H^W$ and a global $R_W$ · 0.93
In this case we obtain the best fit value of the parameter $R_W=0.310±0.021$ which is smaller than the global fixed value $R_W=0.386$ used by Refs. [ref] .

Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM · Case III: Fitted individual $M_H^W$ and a global $R_W$ · 0.93

Cites as support 3 papers

As noted recently by Ref. [ref] a global fixed value for parameter $R_W$ could result in a systematic error in distance measurements and the determination of the Hubble constant $H_0$.

Sensitivity of the Hubble Constant Determination to Cepheid Calibration · Cepheid calibration · 0.97
In fact such a decrease would also lower the growth rate of cosmological perturbations thus helping in the resolution of the growth tension [ref] .

KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints · INTRODUCTION · 0.98
In fact such a decrease would also lower the growth rate of cosmological perturbations thus helping in the resolution of the growth tension [ref] .

A rapid transition of $G_{\rm eff}$ at $z_t \simeq 0.01$ as a solution of the Hubble and growth tensions · INTRODUCTION · 0.98

Cites as background 32 papers

Theoretical models addressing this discrepancy utilize either a recalibration of the $Λ$CDM standard ruler (the sound horizon) assuming new physics before the time of recombination [ref] or a deformation of the Hubble expansion rate $H(z)$ at late times [ref] or an abrupt transition of the SnIa absolute luminosity due to late time new physics [ref] (for a review, see Refs. [ref] , for approaches, see Refs. [ref] and for a relevant talk, see Ref. [ref] ).

A rapid transition of $G_{\rm eff}$ at $z_t \simeq 0.01$ as a solution of the Hubble and growth tensions · INTRODUCTION · 0.89
Theoretical models addressing this discrepancy utilize either a recalibration of the $Λ$CDM standard ruler (the sound horizon) assuming new physics before the time of recombination [ref] or a deformation of the Hubble expansion rate $H(z)$ at late times [ref] or an abrupt transition of the SnIa absolute luminosity due to late time new physics [ref] (for a review, see Refs. [ref] , for approaches, see Refs. [ref] and for a relevant talk, see Ref. [ref] ).

In the Realm of the Hubble tension $-$ a Review of Solutions · INTRODUCTION · 0.89
Theoretical models addressing this discrepancy utilize either a recalibration of the $Λ$CDM standard ruler (the sound horizon) assuming new physics before the time of recombination [ref] or a deformation of the Hubble expansion rate $H(z)$ at late times [ref] or an abrupt transition of the SnIa absolute luminosity due to late time new physics [ref] (for a review, see Refs. [ref] , for approaches, see Refs. [ref] and for a relevant talk, see Ref. [ref] ).

Late time approaches to the Hubble tension deforming $H(z)$, worsen the growth tension · INTRODUCTION · 0.89

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Foteini Skara, “Challenges for ΛCDM: An update,” (2021), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[3] [3]

https://cosmology.physics.uoi.gr

View on Pith

[4] [4]

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, “Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,” Nature Astron. 3, 891 (2019), arXiv:1907.10625 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[5] [5]

Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk, “In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001 (2021), arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Henrietta S. Leavitt, “1777 variables in the Magellanic Clouds,” Harvard Obs. Annals 60, 87–108 (1908)

View on Pith 1908

[7] [7]

Henrietta S. Leavitt and Edward C. Pickering, “Periods of 25 Variable Stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud,” Harvard Obs. Circ. 173, 1–3 (1912)

View on Pith 1912

[8] [8]

Barry F. Madore and Wendy L. Freedman, “The Cepheid distance scale,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 103, 933–957 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[9] [9]

George H. Jacoby, David Branch, Robin Ciardullo, Roger L. Davies, William E. Harris, Michael J. Pierce, Christopher J. Pritchet, John L. Tonry, and Douglas L. Welch, “A Critical Review of Selected Techniques for Measuring Extragalactic Distances,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 104, 599 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[10] [10]

Michael Feast, “Cepheids as Distance Indicators,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 111, 775–793 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[11] [11]

George Wallerstein, “The cepheids of population ii and related stars,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 114, 689–699 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[12] [12]

Allan Sandage and Gustav A. Tammann, “Abso- lute magnitude calibrations of population i and ii cepheids and other pulsating variables in the in- stability strip of the hertzsprung-russell diagram,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44, 93–140 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150612

View on Pith doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150612 2006

[13] [13]

Pascal Fouque, Jesper Storm, and Wolfgang Gieren, “Calibration of the distance scale from Cepheids,” Lect. Notes Phys. 635, 21–44 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0301291

View on Pith 2003

[14] [14]

P. Fouque et al., “A new calibration of Galactic Cepheid Period-Luminosity relations from B to K bands, and a comparison to LMC PL relations,” Astron. Astrophys. 476, 73–81 (2007), arXiv:0709.3255 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[15] [15]

Wendy L. Freedman and Barry F. Madore, “The Hubble 29 Constant,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 673–710 (2010), arXiv:1004.1856 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[16] [16]

Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, Lu- cas M. Macri, and Dan Scolnic, “Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM,” Astrophys. J. 876, 85 (2019), arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[17] [17]

Adam G. Riess, Lucas Macri, Stefano Casertano, Hu- bert Lampeitl, Henry C. Ferguson, Alexei V. Filip- penko, Saurabh W. Jha, Weidong Li, and Ryan Chornock, “A 3% Solution: Determination of the Hub- ble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope and Wide Field Camera 3,” Astrophys. J. 730, 119 (2011), [Er- ratum: Astrophys.J. 732, 129 (2011)], arXiv:1103.297...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[18] [18]

Adam G. Riess et al., “A 2.4% Determination of the Lo- cal Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016), arXiv:1604.01424 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[19] [19]

Gaia Collaboration and A. G. A. Brown et al., “Gaia Early Data Release 3. Summary of the contents and survey properties,” Astron. Astrophys. 649, A1 (2021), arXiv:2012.01533 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[20] [20]

Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Wenlong Yuan, J. Bradley Bowers, Lucas Macri, Joel C. Zinn, and Dan Scolnic, “Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Pre- cision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Con- ﬁrm Tension with ΛCDM,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L6 (2021), arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[21] [21]

W. L. Freedman et al. (HST), “Final results from the Hubble Space Telescope key project to measure the Hubble constant,” Astrophys. J. 553, 47–72 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0012376

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[22] [22]

Adam G. Riess et al., “A Redetermination of the Hubble Constant with the Hubble Space Telescope from a Dif- ferential Distance Ladder,” Astrophys. J. 699, 539–563 (2009), arXiv:0905.0695 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[23] [23]

Adam G. Riess et al. , “New Parallaxes of Galactic Cepheids from Spatially Scanning the Hubble Space Telescope: Implications for the Hubble Constant,” As- trophys. J. 855, 136 (2018), arXiv:1801.01120 [astro- ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[24] [24]

Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Victoria Scowcroft, Chris Burns, Andy Monson, S. Eric Persson, Mark Seibert, and Jane Rigby, “Carnegie Hubble Pro- gram: A Mid-Infrared Calibration of the Hubble Con- stant,” Astrophys. J. 758, 24 (2012), arXiv:1208.3281 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[25] [25]

D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), “First year Wilkinson Mi- crowave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: De- termination of cosmological parameters,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175–194 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[26] [26]

D. N. Spergel et al. (WMAP), “Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: impli- cations for cosmology,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 170, 377 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0603449

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[27] [27]

J. Dunkley et al. (WMAP), “Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Likelihoods and Parameters from the WMAP data,” As- trophys. J. Suppl.180, 306–329 (2009), arXiv:0803.0586 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[28] [28]

E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), “Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation,” Astrophys. J. Suppl.192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[29] [29]

C. L. Bennett et al. (WMAP), “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 20 (2013), arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[30] [30]

P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 571, A16 (2014), arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[31] [31]

P.A.R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck 2015 results. xiii. cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[32] [32]

G.E. Addison, D.J. Watts, C.L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, and J.L. Weiland, “Elucidating ΛCDM: Impact of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements on the Hubble Constant Discrepancy,” Astrophys. J. 853, 119 (2018), arXiv:1707.06547 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[33] [33]

George Efstathiou, “H0 Revisited,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 440, 1138–1152 (2014), arXiv:1311.3461 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[34] [34]

Wilmar Cardona, Martin Kunz, and Valeria Pettorino, “Determining H0 with Bayesian hyper-parameters,” JCAP 1703, 056 (2017), arXiv:1611.06088 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[35] [35]

Bonnie R. Zhang, Michael J. Childress, Tamara M. Davis, Natallia V. Karpenka, Chris Lidman, Brian P. Schmidt, and Mathew Smith, “A blinded determina- tion of H0 from low-redshift Type Ia supernovae, cali- brated by Cepheid variables,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 2254–2285 (2017), arXiv:1706.07573 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[36] [36]

Brent Follin and Lloyd Knox, “Insensitivity of the dis- tance ladder Hubble constant determination to Cepheid calibration modelling choices,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 477, 4534–4542 (2018), arXiv:1707.01175 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[37] [37]

Stephen M. Feeney, Daniel J. Mortlock, and Nic- col` o Dalmasso, “Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 476, 3861–3882 (2018), arXiv:1707.00007 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[38] [38]

Hao-Yi Wu and Dragan Huterer, “Sample variance in the local measurements of the Hubble constant,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 4946–4955 (2017), arXiv:1706.09723 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[39] [39]

Anton Chudaykin, Dmitry Gorbunov, and Nikita Nedelko, “Combined analysis of Planck and SPTPol data favors the early dark energy models,” JCAP 08, 013 (2020), arXiv:2004.13046 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[40] [40]

G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, “H0 Tension, Phantom Dark Energy and Cosmologi- cal Parameter Degeneracies,” Phys. Rev. D101, 123516 (2020), arXiv:2004.08363 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[41] [41]

Moritz Haslbauer, Indranil Banik, and Pavel Kroupa, “The KBC void and Hubble tension contradict ΛCDM on a Gpc scale − Milgromian dynamics as a possible solution,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 2845–2883 (2020), arXiv:2009.11292 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[42] [42]

Tanvi Karwal and Marc Kamionkowski, “Dark en- ergy at early times, the Hubble parameter, and the string axiverse,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 103523 (2016), arXiv:1608.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[43] [43]

Vivian Poulin, Tristan L. Smith, Tanvi Karwal, and Marc Kamionkowski, “Early Dark Energy Can Resolve 30 The Hubble Tension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[44] [44]

Prateek Agrawal, Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine, David Pin- ner, and Lisa Randall, “Rock ’n’ Roll Solutions to the Hubble Tension,” (2019), arXiv:1904.01016 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[45] [45]

Gen Ye and Yun-Song Piao, “Is the Hubble tension a hint of AdS phase around recombination?” Phys. Rev. D 101, 083507 (2020), arXiv:2001.02451 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[46] [46]

Eleonora Di Valentino, Alessandro Melchiorri, and Joseph Silk, “Reconciling Planck with the local value ofH0 in extended parameter space,” Phys. Lett. B761, 242–246 (2016), arXiv:1606.00634 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[47] [47]

Robert R. Caldwell, William Komp, Leonard Parker, and Daniel A. T. Vanzella, “A Sudden gravita- tional transition,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 023513 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0507622

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[48] [48]

Valerio Marra and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “A rapid transition of Geﬀ at zt≃ 0.01 as a possible solution of the Hubble and growth tensions,” Phys. Rev. D 104, L021303 (2021), arXiv:2102.06012 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[49] [49]

Lavrentios Kazantzidis and Leandros Perivolaropou- los, “Is gravity getting weaker at low z? Observa- tional evidence and theoretical implications,” (2019), arXiv:1907.03176 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[50] [50]

G. Alestas and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Late time ap- proaches to the Hubble tension deformingH(z), worsen the growth tension,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 3956 (2021), arXiv:2103.04045 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[51] [51]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “ H0 Crisis: Systematics of distance calibrators or The End of ΛCDM?” https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ0DU88A2ik&t=15s

View on Pith

[52] [52]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “Local deter- mination of the Hubble constant and the decelera- tion parameter,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013028 (2020), arXiv:1906.11814 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[53] [53]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “On the use of the local prior on the absolute magnitude of Type Ia supernovae in cosmological inference,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 504, 5164–5171 (2021), arXiv:2101.08641 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[54] [54]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “A new method to build the (inverse) distance ladder,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 2630–2644 (2020), arXiv:1910.14125 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[55] [55]

George Alestas, Lavrentios Kazantzidis, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “w−M phantom transition atzt<0.1 as a resolution of the Hubble tension,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 083517 (2021), arXiv:2012.13932 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[56] [56]

L. Kazantzidis, H. Koo, S. Nesseris, L. Perivolaropoulos, and A. Shaﬁeloo, “Hints for possible low redshift oscilla- tion around the best-ﬁtting ΛCDM model in the expan- sion history of the Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 3421–3426 (2021), arXiv:2010.03491 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[57] [57]

for full Pantheon dataset in Eq. (2.5) the Hubble constant can be estimated H0 =c 100.2(MB−M)+5 (5.3) In Table I we show the best ﬁt value of SnIa absolute magnitude MB and the corresponding Hubble constant H0 as derived using the Eq. (5.1) and the Eq. (5.3) (the values in the parentheses) for all cases studied in this paper. Also the one dimensional rela...

View on Pith 2014

[58] [58]

L. Kazantzidis and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Hints of a Lo- cal Matter Underdensity or Modiﬁed Gravity in the Low z Pantheon data,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 023520 (2020), arXiv:2004.02155 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[59] [59]

Luca Amendola, Pier Stefano Corasaniti, and Franco Occhionero, “Time variability of the gravitational con- stant and type Ia supernovae,” (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9907222

View on Pith 1999

[60] [60]

E. Gaztanaga, E. Garcia-Berro, J. Isern, E. Bravo, and I. Dominguez, “Bounds on the possible evolution of the gravitational constant from cosmological type Ia super- novae,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 023506 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0109299

View on Pith 2002

[61] [61]

Bill S. Wright and Baojiu Li, “Type Ia supernovae, standardizable candles, and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 083505 (2018), arXiv:1710.07018 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[62] [62]

E. Garcia-Berro, E. Gaztanaga, J. Isern, O. Benvenuto, and L. Althaus, “On the evolution of cosmological type ia supernovae and the gravitational constant,” (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907440

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[63] [63]

S. Nesseris and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Evolv- ing newton’s constant, extended gravity theories and snia data analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 103511 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0602053

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[64] [64]

L. Kazantzidis, L. Perivolaropoulos, and F. Skara, “Constraining power of cosmological observables: blind redshift spots and optimal ranges,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 063537 (2019), arXiv:1812.05356 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[65] [65]

Catherine Heymans et al. , “KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectro- scopic galaxy clustering constraints,” Astron. As- trophys. 646, A140 (2021), arXiv:2007.15632 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[66] [66]

Savvas Nesseris, George Pantazis, and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Tension and constraints on modiﬁed gravity parametrizations of Geﬀ(z) from growth rate and Planck data,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 023542 (2017), arXiv:1703.10538 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[67] [67]

Luca Amendola, Martin Kunz, Ippocratis D. Saltas, and Ignacy Sawicki, “Fate of Large-Scale Structure in Modiﬁed Gravity After GW170817 and GRB170817A,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131101 (2018), arXiv:1711.04825 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[68] [68]

Radouane Gannouji, Lavrentios Kazantzidis, Leandros Perivolaropoulos, and David Polarski, “Consistency of modiﬁed gravity with a decreasing Geﬀ(z) in a ΛCDM background,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 104044 (2018), arXiv:1809.07034 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[69] [69]

Lavrentios Kazantzidis and Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Evolution of thefσ8 tension with the Planck15/ΛCDM determination and implications for modiﬁed grav- ity theories,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 103503 (2018), arXiv:1803.01337 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[70] [70]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos and Lavrentios Kazantzidis, “Hints of modiﬁed gravity in cosmos and in the lab?” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1942001 (2019), arXiv:1904.09462 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[71] [71]

F. Skara and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Tension of the EG statistic and redshift space distortion data with the Planck - Λ CDM model and implications for weak- ening gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 063521 (2020), arXiv:1911.10609 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[72] [72]

Radouane Gannouji, Leandros Perivolaropoulos, David Polarski, and Foteini Skara, “Weak gravity on a ΛCDM background,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 063509 (2021), arXiv:2011.01517 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[73] [73]

George Alestas, Ioannis Antoniou, and Lean- dros Perivolaropoulos, “Hints for a gravitational constant transition in Tully-Fisher data,” (2021), arXiv:2104.14481 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[74] [74]

Edvard Mortsell, Ariel Goobar, Joel Johansson, and Suhail Dhawan, “The Hubble Tension Bites the Dust: Sensitivity of the Hubble Constant Determination to 31 Cepheid Color Calibration,” (2021), arXiv:2105.11461 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[75] [75]

Scott Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2003)

View on Pith 2003

[76] [76]

Leandros Perivolaropoulos, “Accelerating universe: observational status and theoretical implications,” AIP Conf. Proc. 848, 698–712 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0601014

View on Pith 2006

[77] [77]

D. M. Scolnic et al. , “The Complete Light-curve Sam- ple of Spectroscopically Conﬁrmed SNe Ia from Pan- STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Com- bined Pantheon Sample,” Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018), arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[78] [78]

Bradley E. Schaefer, “The Hubble Diagram to Redshift >6 from 69 Gamma-Ray Bursts,” Astrophys. J. 660, 16–46 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612285

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[79] [79]

N. R. Tanvir et al. , “A gamma-ray burst at a redshift of z˜8.2,” Nature 461, 1254–1257 (2009)

View on Pith 2009

[80] [80]

A. Cucchiara et al. , “A Photometric Redshift of z ˜ 9.4 for GRB 090429B,” Astrophys. J. 736, 7 (2011), arXiv:1105.4915 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[81] [81]

J. S. Wang, F. Y. Wang, K. S. Cheng, and Z. G. Dai, “Measuring dark energy with theEiso−Ep correlation of gamma-ray bursts using model-independent methods,” Astron. Astrophys. 585, A68 (2016), arXiv:1509.08558 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[82] [82]

Marek Demianski, Ester Piedipalumbo, Disha Sawant, and Lorenzo Amati, “Cosmology with gamma-ray bursts: I. The Hubble diagram through the calibrated Ep,i - Eiso correlation,” Astron. Astrophys. 598, A112 (2017), arXiv:1610.00854 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[83] [83]

Chen-Han Tang, Yong-Feng Huang, Jin-Jun Geng, and Zhi-Bin Zhang, “Statistical Study of Gamma-Ray Bursts with a Plateau Phase in the X-ray Afterglow,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 245, 1 (2019), arXiv:1905.07929 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[84] [84]

M. M. Phillips, “The absolute magnitudes of Type IA supernovae,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 413, L105–L108 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[85] [85]

Eoin ´O. Colg´ ain, “A hint of matter underdensity at low z?” JCAP 09, 006 (2019), arXiv:1903.11743 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[86] [86]

Domenico Sapone, Savvas Nesseris, and Carlos A. P. Bengaly, “Is there any measurable redshift dependence on the SN Ia absolute magnitude?” Phys. Dark Univ. 32, 100814 (2021), arXiv:2006.05461 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[87] [87]

Hanwool Koo, Arman Shaﬁeloo, Ryan E. Keeley, and Benjamin L’Huillier, “Model-independent Con- straints on Type Ia Supernova Light-curve Hyperpa- rameters and Reconstructions of the Expansion His- tory of the Universe,” Astrophys. J. 899, 9 (2020), arXiv:2001.10887 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[88] [88]

Vladimir V. Lukovi´ c, Balakrishna S. Haridasu, and Nicola Vittorio, “Exploring the evidence for a large local void with supernovae Ia data,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491, 2075–2087 (2020), arXiv:1907.11219 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[89] [89]

Isaac Tutusaus, Brahim Lamine, and Alain Blanchard, “Model-independent cosmic acceleration and redshift- dependent intrinsic luminosity in type-Ia supernovae,” Astron. Astrophys. 625, A15 (2019), arXiv:1803.06197 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[90] [90]

Isaac Tutusaus, Brahim Lamine, Arnaud Dupays, and Alain Blanchard, “Is cosmic acceleration proven by lo- cal cosmological probes?” Astron. Astrophys. 602, A73 (2017), arXiv:1706.05036 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[91] [91]

Persis S. Drell, Thomas J. Loredo, and Ira Wasserman, “Type Ia supernovae, evolution, and the cosmological constant,” Astrophys. J. 530, 593 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9905027

View on Pith 2000

[92] [92]

Beatrice M. Tinsley, “Evolution of the Stars and Gas in Galaxies,” Astroph. J. 151, 547 (1968)

View on Pith 1968

[93] [93]

Yijung Kang, Young-Wook Lee, Young-Lo Kim, Chul Chung, and Chang Hee Ree, “Early-type Host Galax- ies of Type Ia Supernovae. II. Evidence for Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology,” Astrophys. J.889, 8 (2020), arXiv:1912.04903 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[94] [94]

B. M. Rose, P. M. Garnavich, and M. A. Berg, “Think Global, Act Local: The Inﬂuence of Environment Age and Host Mass on Type Ia Supernova Light Curves,” Astrophys. J. 874, 32 (2019), arXiv:1902.01433 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[95] [95]

D. O. Jones et al., “Should Type Ia Supernova Distances be Corrected for their Local Environments?” Astrophys. J. 867, 108 (2018), arXiv:1805.05911 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[96] [96]

M. Rigault et al. (Nearby Supernova Factory), “Strong Dependence of Type Ia Supernova Standardization on the Local Speciﬁc Star Formation Rate,” Astron. As- trophys. 644, A176 (2020), arXiv:1806.03849 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[97] [97]

Young-Lo Kim, Mathew Smith, Mark Sullivan, and Young-Wook Lee, “Environmental Dependence of Type Ia Supernova Luminosities from a Sample without a Local-Global Diﬀerence in Host Star Formation,” As- troph. J. 854, 24 (2018), arXiv:1801.01192 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[98] [98]

A. Sandage, G.A. Tammann, A. Saha, B. Reindl, F.D. Macchetto, and N. Panagia, “The Hubble Con- stant: A Summary of the HST Program for the Lu- minosity Calibration of Type Ia Supernovae by Means of Cepheids,” Astrophys. J. 653, 843–860 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603647

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[99] [99]

G. Fritz Benedict, Barbara E. McArthur, Michael W. Feast, Thomas G. Barnes, Thomas E. Harrison, Richard J. Patterson, John W. Menzies, Jacob L. Bean, and Wendy L. Freedman, “Hubble Space Telescope Fine Guidance Sensor Parallaxes of Galactic Cepheid Vari- able Stars: Period-Luminosity Relations,” Astron. J. 133, 1810–1827 (2007), [Erratum: Astron.J. 133, 2...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[100] [100]

Floor van Leeuwen, Michael W. Feast, Patricia A. Whitelock, and Clifton D. Laney, “Cepheid Parallaxes and the Hubble Constant,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 379, 723–737 (2007), arXiv:0705.1592 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[101] [101]

Stefano Casertano et al., “Parallax of Galactic Cepheids from Spatially Scanning the Wide Field Camera 3 on the Hubble Space Telescope: The Case of SS Canis Ma- joris,” Astrophys. J. 825, 11 (2016), arXiv:1512.09371 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[102] [102]

Adam G. Riess, Stefano Casertano, Jay Anderson, John Mackenty, and Alexei V. Filippenko, “Parallax Beyond a Kiloparsec from Spatially Scanning the Wide Field Camera 3 on the Hubble Space Telescope,” Astrophys. J. 785, 161 (2014), arXiv:1401.0484 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[103] [103]

L. Lindegren, U. Lammers, U. Bastian, and et al., “Gaia Data Release 1. Astrometry: one billion po- sitions, two million proper motions and parallaxes,” 32 Astron. Astrophys. 595, A4 (2016), arXiv:1609.04303 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[104] [104]

Adam G. Riess et al. , “Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant,” As- trophys. J. 861, 126 (2018), arXiv:1804.10655 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[105] [105]

G. Pietrzy´ nski, D. Graczyk, A. Gallenne, W. Gieren, I. B. Thompson, B. Pilecki, P. Karczmarek, M. G´ orski, K. Suchomska, M. Taormina, B. Zgirski, P. Wielg´ orski, Z. Ko laczkowski, P. Konorski, S. Vil- lanova, N. Nardetto, P. Kervella, F. Bresolin, R. P. Kudritzki, J. Storm, R. Smolec, and W. Narloch, “A distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud that is p...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[106] [106]

J. R. Herrnstein, J. M. Moran, L. J. Greenhill, P. J. Diamond, M. Inoue, N. Nakai, M. Miyoshi, C. Henkel, and A. Riess, “A Geometric distance to the galaxy NGC 4258 from orbital motions in a nuclear gas disk,” Nature 400, 539–541 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9907013

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[107] [107]

E. M. L. Humphreys, Mark J. Reid, Jim M. Moran, Lin- coln J. Greenhill, and Alice L. Argon, “Toward a New Geometric Distance to the Active Galaxy NGC 4258. III. Final Results and the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 775, 13 (2013), arXiv:1307.6031 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[108] [108]

M.J. Reid, D.W. Pesce, and A.G. Riess, “An Improved Distance to NGC 4258 and its Implications for the Hub- ble Constant,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 886, L27 (2019), arXiv:1908.05625 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[109] [109]

G. Pietrzy´ nskiet al. , “An eclipsing binary distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud accurate to 2 per cent,” Na- ture 495, 76–79 (2013), arXiv:1303.2063 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[110] [110]

Siyang Li, Adam G. Riess, Michael P. Busch, Stefano Casertano, Lucas M. Macri, and Wenlong Yuan, “A sub-2% Distance to M31 from Photometrically Homo- geneous Near-Infrared Cepheid Period-Luminosity Re- lations Measured with the Hubble Space Telescope,” (2021), arXiv:2107.08029 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[111] [111]

B. T. Draine, “Interstellar dust grains,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 241–289 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0304489

View on Pith 2003

[112] [112]

Bradley W. Carroll and Dale A. Ostlie, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics , 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

View on Pith 2017

[113] [113]

B. F. Madore, “The period-luminosity relation. IV. In- trinsic relations and reddenings for the Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheids.” Astroph. J. 253, 575–579 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[114] [114]

Edward L. Fitzpatrick, “Correcting for the eﬀects of in- terstellar extinction,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 111, 63– 75 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9809387

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[115] [115]

R. McGonegal, C. W. McAlary, B. F. Madore, and R. A. McLaren, “The Cepheid distance scale - A new application for infrared photometry,” Astroph. J. 257, L33–L36 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[116] [116]

Wendy L. Freedman, Christine D. Wilson, and Barry F. Madore, “New Cepheid Distances to Nearby Galaxies Based on BVRI CCD Photometry. II. The Local Group Galaxy M33,” Astroph. J. 372, 455 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[117] [117]

Lucas M. Macri et al., “NICMOS observations of extra- galactic Cepheids. 1. Photometry database and a test of the standard extinction law,” Astrophys. J. 549, 721 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102125

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[118] [118]

Piotr Wielg´ orski, Grzegorz Pietrzy´ nski, Wolfgang Gieren, Marek G´ orski, Rolf-Peter Kudritzki, Bart lomiej Zgirski, Fabio Bresolin, Jesper Storm, Noriyuki Mat- sunaga, Dariusz Graczyk, and Igor Soszy´ nski, “A Pre- cision Determination of the Eﬀect of Metallicity on Cepheid Absolute Magnitudes in VIJHK Bands from Magellanic Cloud Cepheids,” Astroph. J...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[119] [119]

W. Gieren, J. Storm, P. Konorski, M. G´ orski, B. Pilecki, I. Thompson, G. Pietrzy´ nski, D. Graczyk, T. G. Barnes, P. Fouqu´ e, N. Nardetto, A. Gallenne, P. Karczmarek, K. Suchomska, P. Wielg´ orski, M. Taormina, and B. Zgirski, “The eﬀect of metallicity on Cepheid period- luminosity relations from a Baade-Wesselink analysis of Cepheids in the Milky Way ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[120] [120]

M. A. T. Groenewegen, “The Cepheid period- luminosity-metallicity relation based on Gaia DR2 data,” Astron. Astrophys. 619, A8 (2018), arXiv:1808.05796 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[121] [121]

V. Ripepi, G. Catanzaro, R. Molinaro, M. Marconi, G. Clementini, F. Cusano, G. De Somma, S. Lec- cia, I. Musella, and V. Testa, “Period-luminosity- metallicity relation of classical Cepheids,” Astron. As- trophys. 642, A230 (2020), arXiv:2008.04608 [astro- ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[122] [122]

Louise Breuval, Pierre Kervella, Piotr Wielg´ orski, Wolf- gang Gieren, Dariusz Graczyk, Boris Trahin, Grzegorz Pietrzy´ nski, Fr´ ed´ eric Arenou, Behnam Javanmardi, and Bart lomiej Zgirski, “The Inﬂuence of Metallicity on the Leavitt Law from Geometrical Distances of Milky Way and Magellanic Cloud Cepheids,” Astroph. J.913, 38 (2021), arXiv:2103.10894 [...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[123] [123]

Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Dylan Hatt, Taylor J. Hoyt, In Sung Jang, Rachael L. Beaton, Christopher R. Burns, Myung Gyoon Lee, Andrew J. Monson, Jillian R. Neeley, M. M. Phillips, Jeﬀrey A. Rich, and Mark Seibert, “The carnegie-chicago hub- ble program. VIII. an independent determination of the hubble constant based on the tip of the red giant br...

View on Pith 2019

[124] [124]

Adam G. Riess, Wenlong Yuan, Stefano Casertano, Lucas M. Macri, and Dan Scolnic, “The Accuracy of the Hubble Constant Measurement Veriﬁed through Cepheid Amplitudes,” Astrophys. J. 896, L43 (2020), arXiv:2005.02445 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[125] [125]

Wendy L. Freedman, “Measurements of the Hub- ble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,” (2021), arXiv:2106.15656 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[126] [126]

J. D. Fernie, “The Structure of the Cepheid Instability Strip,” Astroph. J. 354, 295 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[127] [127]

Allan Sandage and G. A. Tammann, “Temperature Dif- ferences in the Cepheid Instability Strip Require Dif- ferences in the Period-Luminosity Relation in Slope and Zero Point,” Astrophys. J. 686, 779–784 (2008), arXiv:0803.3836 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[128] [128]

Barry F. Madore, Wendy L. Freedman, and Sandy Moak, “A Method for Improving Galactic Cepheid Red- denings and Distances,” Astroph. J. 842, 42 (2017)

View on Pith 2017

[129] [129]

Ondrej Pejcha and Christopher S. Kochanek, “A Global Physical Model for Cepheids,” Astrophys. J. 748, 107 (2012), arXiv:1112.3038 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[130] [130]

Gustav A. Tammann, Bernd Reindl, Frank Thim, Ab- hijit Saha, and Allan Sandage, “Cepheids, Supernovae, 33 H0, and the Age of the Universe,” in A New Era in Cosmology, Astronomical Society of the Paciﬁc Confer- ence Series, Vol. 283, edited by Nigel Metcalfe and Tom Shanks (2002) p. 258, arXiv:astro-ph/0112489 [astro- ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[131] [131]

G. A. Tammann, A. Sandage, and Bernd Reindl, “New period - luminosity and period - color relations of clas- sical Cepheids: 1. Cepheids in the Galaxy,” Astron. As- trophys. 404, 423–448 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0303378

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[132] [132]

A. Sandage, G. A. Tammann, and Bernd Reindl, “New period - luminosity and period - color relations of classi- cal Cepheids: 2. Cepheids in LMC,” Astron. Astrophys. 424, 43–71 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402424

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[133] [133]

Cow-Choong Ngeow, Shashi M. Kanbur, Sergei Niko- laev, John Buonaccorsi, Kem H. Cook, and Douglas L. Welch, “Further empirical evidence for the non-linearity of the period-luminosity relations as seen in the Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheids,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 363, 831–846 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507601

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[134] [134]

A. Sandage, G. A. Tammann, and B. Reindl, “New period-luminosity and period-color relations of classical Cepheids: III. Cepheids in SMC,” Astron. Astrophys. 493, 471–479 (2009), arXiv:0810.1780 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[135] [135]

Anupam Bhardwaj, Shashi M. Kanbur, Lucas M. Macri, Harinder P. Singh, Chow-Choong Ngeow, and Emille E. O. Ishida, “Large Magellanic Cloud Near-Infrared Synoptic Survey - III. A statistical study of non-linearity in the Leavitt Laws,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 457, 1644–1665 (2016), arXiv:1601.00953 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[136] [136]

H. L. Johnson and J. Borgman, “The law of interstellar extinction,” BAN 17, 115 (1963)

View on Pith 1963

[137] [137]

Kevin Krisciunas, Jose Luis Prieto, Peter M. Garnavich, Jessica-Lynn G. Riley, Armin Rest, Christopher Stubbs, and Russet McMillan, “Photometry of the type ia su- pernovae 1999cc, 1999cl, and 2000cf,” Astron. J. 131, 1639–1647 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511162

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[138] [138]

Serena Nobili and Ariel Goobar, “The colour-lightcurve shape relation of Type Ia supernovae and the red- dening law,” Astron. Astrophys. 487, 19 (2008), arXiv:0712.1155 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[139] [139]

M. M. Fausnaugh, C. S. Kochanek, J. R. Gerke, L. M. Macri, A. G. Riess, and K. Z. Stanek, “The Cepheid distance to the maser-host galaxy NGC 4258: studying systematics with the Large Binocular Telescope,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, 3597– 3619 (2015), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/450/4/3597/5831120/stv881.pdf

View on Pith 2015

[140] [140]

Ariel Goobar, “Low R v from circumstellar dust around supernovae,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 686, L103– L106 (2008), arXiv:0809.1094 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[141] [141]

Gaston Folatelli et al. , “The Carnegie Supernova Project: Analysis of the First Sample of Low-Redshift Type-Ia Supernovae,” Astron. J. 139, 120–144 (2010), arXiv:0910.3317 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[142] [142]

Hubert Lampeitl et al. (SDSS), “The Eﬀect of Host Galaxies on Type Ia Supernovae in the SDSS-II Su- pernova Survey,” Astrophys. J. 722, 566–576 (2010), arXiv:1005.4687 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[143] [143]

A. Goobar et al. , “The Rise of SN 2014J in the Nearby Galaxy M82,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 784, L12 (2014), arXiv:1402.0849 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[144] [144]

R. Amanullah et al. , “The peculiar extinction law of SN2014J measured with The Hubble Space Telescope,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 788, L21 (2014), arXiv:1404.2595 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[145] [145]

R. Amanullah et al. , “Diversity in extinction laws of Type Ia supernovae measured between 0.2 and 2 µm,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453, 3300–3328 (2015), arXiv:1504.02101 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[146] [146]

Aleksandar Cikota, Susana Deustua, and Francine Mar- leau, “Determining Type Ia Supernovae Host galaxy extinction probabilities and a statistical approach to estimating the absorption-to-reddening ratio RV ,” As- trophys. J. 819, 152 (2016), arXiv:1601.05659 [astro- ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[147] [147]

Rahul Biswas et al. , “Two c’s in a pod: Cosmology independent measurement of the Type Ia supernova colour-luminosity relation with a sibling pair,” (2021), arXiv:2103.16978 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith arXiv 2021

[148] [148]

Jason A. Cardelli, Geoﬀrey C. Clayton, and John S. Mathis, “The relationship between infrared, optical, and ultraviolet extinction,” Astrophys. J. 345, 245–256 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[149] [149]

James E. O’Donnell, “Rv-dependent Optical and Near- Ultraviolet Extinction,” Astroph. J. 422, 158 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[150] [150]

David M. Nataf et al. , “Interstellar extinction curve variations towards the inner Milky Way: a challenge to observational cosmology,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 456, 2692–2706 (2016), arXiv:1510.01321 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[151] [151]

Edvard Mortsell, Ariel Goobar, Joel Johansson, and Suhail Dhawan, “The Hubble Tension Revisited: Ad- ditional Local Distance Ladder Uncertainties,” (2021), arXiv:2106.09400 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[152] [152]

G. Efstathiou, “A Lockdown Perspective on the Hub- ble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team),” (2020), arXiv:2007.10716 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[153] [153]

Samantha L. Hoﬀmann et al., “Optical Identiﬁcation of Cepheids in 19 Host Galaxies of Type Ia Supernovae and NGC 4258 with the Hubble Space Telescope,” Astro- phys. J. 830, 10 (2016), arXiv:1607.08658 [astro-ph.SR]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[154] [154]

Julien Guy, P. Astier, S. Nobili, N. Regnault, and R. Pain (SNLS), “SALT: A Spectral adaptive Light curve Template for Type Ia supernovae,” Astron. As- trophys. 443, 781–791 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506583

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[155] [155]

Julien Guy et al. (SNLS), “SALT2: Using distant su- pernovae to improve the use of Type Ia supernovae as distance indicators,” Astron. Astrophys. 466, 11–21 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701828

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[156] [156]

J. Guy et al. (SNLS), “The Supernova Legacy Survey 3- year sample: Type Ia Supernovae photometric distances and cosmological constraints,” Astron. Astrophys. 523, A7 (2010), arXiv:1010.4743 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[157] [157]

J. Mosher et al., “Cosmological Parameter Uncertainties from SALT-II Type Ia Supernova Light Curve Models,” Astrophys. J. 793, 16 (2014), arXiv:1401.4065 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[158] [158]

http://supernovae.in2p3.fr/salt/doku.php

View on Pith

[159] [159]

M. Betoule et al. (SDSS), “Improved cosmological con- straints from a joint analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS supernova samples,” Astron. Astrophys.568, A22 (2014), arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[160] [160]

M. Romaniello, F. Primas, M. Mottini, S. Pedicelli, B. Lemasle, G. Bono, P. Francois, M. A. T. Groe- newegen, and C. D. Laney, “The inﬂuence of chemi- cal composition on the properties of Cepheid stars. II- The iron content,” Astron. Astrophys. 488, 731 (2008), arXiv:0807.1196 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[161] [161]

Samyaday Choudhury, Annapurni Subrama- 34 niam, and Andrew A. Cole, “Photometric metallicity map of the Large Magellanic Cloud,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 455, 1855–1880 (2015), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/455/2/1855/18513939/stv2414.pdf

View on Pith 2015

[162] [162]

https://github.com/FOTEINISKARA/Cepheid_SnIa_ Calibrator_Data_Transition

View on Pith

[163] [163]

H. Jeﬀreys, Theory of probability , 3rd ed. (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1961)

View on Pith 1961

[164] [164]

Andrew R. Liddle, “How many cosmological param- eters?” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 351, L49–L53 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0401198 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[165] [165]

Savvas Nesseris and Juan Garcia-Bellido, “Is the Jeﬀreys’ scale a reliable tool for Bayesian model comparison in cosmology?” JCAP 08, 036 (2013), arXiv:1210.7652 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[166] [166]

Alexander Bonilla Rivera and Jorge Enrique Garc´ ıa- Farieta, “Exploring the Dark Universe: constraints on dynamical Dark Energy models from CMB, BAO and growth rate measurements,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1950118 (2019), arXiv:1605.01984 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[167] [167]

Judit P´ erez-Romero and Savvas Nesseris, “Cosmolog- ical constraints and comparison of viable f(R) mod- els,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 023525 (2018), arXiv:1710.05634 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[168] [168]

David Camarena and Valerio Marra, “Impact of the cos- mic variance on H0 on cosmological analyses,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 023537 (2018), arXiv:1805.09900 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[169] [169]

H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identi- ﬁcation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716–723

View on Pith

[170] [170]

Gideon Schwarz, “Estimating the Dimension of a Model,” Annals Statist. 6, 461–464 (1978)

View on Pith 1978

[171] [171]

Andrew R Liddle, “Information criteria for astrophysi- cal model selection,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 377, L74–L78 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701113 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[172] [172]

Fabiola Arevalo, Antonella Cid, and Jorge Moya, “AIC and BIC for cosmological interacting scenarios,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 565 (2017), arXiv:1610.09330 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[173] [173]

Martin Kerscher and Jochen Weller, “On Model Se- lection in Cosmology,” SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 9, 1 (2019), arXiv:1901.07726 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[174] [174]

Moncy V. John and J. V. Narlikar, “Comparison of cos- mological models using bayesian theory,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 043506 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111122

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[175] [175]

K. P Burnham and D. R. Anderson, Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, 2002)

View on Pith 2002

[176] [176]

K. P Burnham and D. R. Anderson, “Multimodel Infer- ence: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection,” Sociol. Method. 33, 261 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[177] [177]

Nariaki Sugiura, “Further analysts of the data by akaike’ s information criterion and the ﬁ- nite corrections,” Communications in Statis- tics - Theory and Methods 7, 13–26 (1978), https://doi.org/10.1080/03610927808827599

View on Pith doi:10.1080/03610927808827599 1978

[178] [178]

Rub´ en Arjona, Wilmar Cardona, and Savvas Nesseris, “Unraveling the eﬀective ﬂuid approach forf(R) models in the subhorizon approximation,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 043516 (2019), arXiv:1811.02469 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[179] [179]

Mehdi Rezaei, Mohammad Malekjani, and Joan Sola, “Can dark energy be expressed as a power series of the Hubble parameter?” Phys. Rev. D 100, 023539 (2019), arXiv:1905.00100 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[180] [180]

Dillon Brout and Daniel Scolnic, “It’s Dust: Solving the Mysteries of the Intrinsic Scatter and Host-galaxy Dependence of Standardized Type Ia Supernova Bright- nesses,” Astrophys. J. 909, 26 (2021), arXiv:2004.10206 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[181] [181]

J. et al. Johansson, “Near-IR Type Ia SN distances: host galaxy extinction and mass-step corrections revisited,” (2021), arXiv:2105.06236 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[182] [182]

Mario Hamuy, M. M. Phillips, Jose Maza, Nicholas B. Suntzeﬀ, R. A. Schommer, and R. Aviles, “A Hubble Diagram of Distant Type 1a Supernovae,” Astron. J. 109, 1 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[183] [183]

Mark Sullivan et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), “The Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae as a func- tion of host galaxy morphology,” Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 340, 1057 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0211444

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[184] [184]

M. J. Childress et al. , “Host Galaxy Properties and Hubble Residuals of Type Ia Supernovae from the Nearby Supernova Factory,” Astrophys. J. 770, 108 (2013), arXiv:1304.4720 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[185] [185]

P. Wiseman et al. (DES), “Supernova Host Galaxies in the Dark Energy Survey: I. Deep Coadds, Photometry, and Stellar Masses,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 4040–4060 (2020), arXiv:2001.02640 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[186] [186]

L. Kelsey et al. (DES), “Skip Nav Destination The eﬀect of environment on Type Ia supernovae in the Dark Energy Survey three-year cosmological sample,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 501, 4861–4876 (2021), arXiv:2008.12101 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[187] [187]

Sara Mazrouei, Rebecca R. Ghent, William F. Bottke, Alex H. Parker, and Thomas M. Gernon, “Earth and moon impact ﬂux increased at the end of the paleozoic,” Science 363, 253–257 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[188] [188]

P. Schulte et al., “The chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the cretaceous-paleogene boundary,” Science 327, 1214–1218 (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[189] [189]

Paul R. Renne, Alan L. Deino, Frederik J. Hilgen, Klau- dia F. Kuiper, Darren F. Mark, William S. Mitchell, Leah E. Morgan, Roland Mundil, and Jan Smit, “Time scales of critical events around the cretaceous-paleogene boundary,” Science 339, 684–687 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[190] [190]

John Alroy, “Dynamics of origination and extinction in the marine fossil record,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 11536–11542 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[191] [191]

Luis W. Alvarez, Walter Alvarez, Frank Asaro, and He- len V. Michel, “Extraterrestrial cause for the cretaceous- tertiary extinction,” Science 208, 1095–1108 (1980)

View on Pith 1980

[192] [192]

Luis W. Alvarez, “Experimental Evidence that an As- teroid Impact Led to the Extinction of Many Species 65 Million Years Ago,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 80, 627–642 (1983)

View on Pith 1983

[193] [193]

Rachael L. Beaton et al. , “The Carnegie-Chicago Hub- ble Program. I. An Independent Approach to the Ex- tragalactic Distance Scale Using only Population II Distance Indicators,” Astrophys. J. 832, 210 (2016), arXiv:1604.01788 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[194] [194]

S. Cassisi and M. Salaris, “A critical investigation on the discrepancy between the observational and theoretical red giant luminosity function bump,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 285, 593 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9702029

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[195] [195]

In Sung Jang and Myung Gyoon Lee, “The Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to Type Ia Supernova Host Galaxies. III. NGC 4038/39 and NGC 5584,” Astroph. 35 J. 807, 133 (2015), arXiv:1506.03089 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[196] [196]

In Sung Jang and Myung Gyoon Lee, “The Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to Typa Ia Supernova Host Galaxies. V. NGC 3021, NGC 3370, and NGC 1309 and the Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. 836, 74 (2017), arXiv:1702.01118 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[197] [197]

Dylan Hatt et al. , “The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Pro- gram. IV. The Distance to NGC 4424, NGC 4526, and NGC 4356 via the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,” As- trophys. J. 861, 104 (2018), arXiv:1806.02900 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[198] [198]

Dylan Hatt et al. , “The Carnegie–Chicago Hubble Pro- gram. V. The Distances to NGC 1448 and NGC 1316 via the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,” Astrophys. J. 866, 145 (2018), arXiv:1809.01741 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[199] [199]

Wendy L. Freedman et al. , “The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determina- tion of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch,” (2019), 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73, arXiv:1907.05922 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[200] [200]

Wendy L. Freedman, Barry F. Madore, Taylor Hoyt, In Sung Jang, Rachael Beaton, Myung Gyoon Lee, An- drew Monson, Jill Neeley, and Jeﬀrey Rich, “Calibra- tion of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB),” (2020), arXiv:2002.01550 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[201] [201]

Sidney R. Coleman, “The Fate of the False Vacuum

View on Pith

[202] [202]

Semiclassical Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 15, 2929–2936 (1977), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

View on Pith 1977

[203] [203]

Amol V. Patwardhan and George M. Fuller, “Late- time vacuum phase transitions: Connecting sub-eV scale physics with cosmological structure formation,” Phys. Rev. D90, 063009 (2014), arXiv:1401.1923 [astro- ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[204] [204]

Curtis G. Callan, Jr. and Sidney R. Coleman, “The Fate of the False Vacuum. 2. First Quantum Corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 16, 1762–1768 (1977)

View on Pith 1977

[205] [205]

Michael Doran and Georg Robbers, “Early dark en- ergy cosmologies,” JCAP 06, 026 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0601544

View on Pith 2006