pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2112.04510 · v3 · submitted 2021-12-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

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

Adam G. Riess , Wenlong Yuan , Lucas M. Macri , Dan Scolnic , Dillon Brout , Stefano Casertano , David O. Jones , Yukei Murakami
show 10 more authors
Louise Breuval Thomas G. Brink Alexei V. Filippenko Samantha Hoffmann Saurabh W. Jha W. D'Arcy Kenworthy Gagandeep Anand John MacKenty Benjamin E. Stahl Weikang Zheng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 18:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords Hubble constantCepheidsType Ia supernovaedistance ladderHubble tensioncosmic calibrationgeometric anchors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Local Hubble constant measured at 73.04 km/s/Mpc with 1 km/s/Mpc uncertainty, differing by 5 sigma from Planck LCDM prediction.

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

The paper presents observations of Cepheids in the hosts of 42 nearby Type Ia supernovae using the Hubble Space Telescope to calibrate the distance ladder. These Cepheids are anchored geometrically through Gaia parallaxes, maser distances in NGC 4258, and detached eclipsing binaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud, all observed with the same instrument to minimize zeropoint offsets. The resulting Hubble constant value is 73.04 plus or minus 1.04 km/s/Mpc after including systematic uncertainties and testing about 70 analysis variants for choices in anchors, dust, metallicity, and sample selections. This local measurement exceeds the value predicted by the Planck satellite data under standard LCDM cosmology by five standard deviations. The discrepancy persists across multiple checks, including consistency with tip-of-the-red-giant-branch distances, pointing to an unresolved tension between direct local measurements and early-universe inferences.

Core claim

The central claim is that a comprehensive Cepheid-calibrated sample of 42 Type Ia supernovae yields H0 equal to 73.04 with an uncertainty of 1.04 km/s/Mpc. This result comes from HST photometry of Cepheids in all suitable low-redshift supernova hosts, calibrated by three independent geometric methods and combined with the Pantheon+ supernova compilation while matching host properties and surveys. The value lies near the median of dozens of analysis variants that vary selections, dust laws, period-luminosity forms, and flows. It differs at the five-sigma level from the H0 of approximately 67.4 km/s/Mpc predicted by Planck plus LCDM, with no evidence that the offset arises from the tested phot

What carries the argument

The Cepheid period-luminosity relation calibrated geometrically by Gaia EDR3 parallaxes, NGC 4258 masers, and LMC detached eclipsing binaries, then applied to standardize Type Ia supernovae for the local magnitude-redshift relation.

If this is right

  • The five-sigma tension with the Planck LCDM prediction remains after all considered variations and is not explained by measurement error.
  • Combining with tip-of-the-red-giant-branch distances in the same hosts produces a consistent value of 72.53 plus or minus 0.99 km/s/Mpc.
  • Extending the fit to include high-redshift supernovae gives H0 of 73.30 plus or minus 1.04 km/s/Mpc and deceleration parameter q0 of minus 0.51 plus or minus 0.024.
  • The result is stable across bifurcations of the sample and simultaneous fits for H(z) at higher redshifts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the tension is real, models that alter the early expansion history or introduce new components would be needed to reconcile local and cosmic microwave background routes to H0.
  • Future space-based observations could test whether crowding corrections or metallicity dependence in Cepheids are underestimated beyond the variants explored.
  • The measured H0 affects derived quantities such as the age of the universe and the inferred strength of dark energy at late times.

Load-bearing premise

That residual systematics from Cepheid crowding, metallicity, or supernova standardization have been fully captured by the seventy analysis variants and do not bias the central Hubble constant value.

What would settle it

An independent geometric distance to one of the supernova host galaxies that deviates by more than 2 km/s/Mpc from the Cepheid-based distance ladder would falsify the central H0 result.

read the original abstract

We report observations from HST of Cepheids in the hosts of 42 SNe Ia used to calibrate the Hubble constant (H0). These include all suitable SNe Ia in the last 40 years at z<0.01, measured with >1000 orbits, more than doubling the sample whose size limits the precision of H0. The Cepheids are calibrated geometrically from Gaia EDR3 parallaxes, masers in N4258 (here tripling that Cepheid sample), and DEBs in the LMC. The Cepheids were measured with the same WFC3 instrument and filters (F555W, F814W, F160W) to negate zeropoint errors. We present multiple verifications of Cepheid photometry and tests of background determinations that show measurements are accurate in the presence of crowding. The SNe calibrate the mag-z relation from the new Pantheon+ compilation, accounting here for covariance between all SN data, with host properties and SN surveys matched to negate differences. We decrease the uncertainty in H0 to 1 km/s/Mpc with systematics. We present a comprehensive set of ~70 analysis variants to explore the sensitivity of H0 to selections of anchors, SN surveys, z range, variations in the analysis of dust, metallicity, form of the P-L relation, SN color, flows, sample bifurcations, and simultaneous measurement of H(z). Our baseline result from the Cepheid-SN sample is H0=73.04+-1.04 km/s/Mpc, which includes systematics and lies near the median of all analysis variants. We demonstrate consistency with measures from HST of the TRGB between SN hosts and NGC 4258 with Cepheids and together these yield 72.53+-0.99. Including high-z SN Ia we find H0=73.30+-1.04 with q0=-0.51+-0.024. We find a 5-sigma difference with H0 predicted by Planck+LCDM, with no indication this arises from measurement errors or analysis variations considered to date. The source of this now long-standing discrepancy between direct and cosmological routes to determining the Hubble constant remains unknown.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a comprehensive measurement of the Hubble constant using Cepheid variables observed with the Hubble Space Telescope in the hosts of 42 Type Ia supernovae. Calibrated using geometric anchors from Gaia EDR3 parallaxes, masers in NGC 4258, and detached eclipsing binaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud, the analysis yields H0 = 73.04 ± 1.04 km/s/Mpc. The result incorporates extensive tests for systematics, covariance in the Pantheon+ supernova sample, and is shown to be stable across ~70 analysis variants, leading to a 5σ discrepancy with the Planck+ΛCDM prediction.

Significance. Should the central result prove robust, this work would represent a major advancement in resolving or confirming the Hubble tension, with broad implications for our understanding of the Universe's expansion history and possible extensions to the standard cosmological model. The multi-anchor calibration and variant testing provide a strong foundation for the claimed precision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The claim of a 5-sigma difference with Planck+LCDM H0 requires explicit quotation of the Planck-derived H0 value and its uncertainty in the main text to substantiate the tension significance.
  2. [Analysis variants section] While the baseline result is near the median of variants, the manuscript should include a summary statistic (e.g., standard deviation or range) of H0 values from the ~70 variants to demonstrate the robustness quantitatively.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify the exact previous sample size to support the statement 'more than doubling the sample'.
  2. [Methods] The description of the WFC3 filters could benefit from noting their correspondence to standard bands for broader accessibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The claim of a 5-sigma difference with Planck+LCDM H0 requires explicit quotation of the Planck-derived H0 value and its uncertainty in the main text to substantiate the tension significance.

    Authors: We agree that explicitly quoting the Planck value strengthens the presentation of the tension. In the revised manuscript we will add the specific Planck+ΛCDM H0 value and uncertainty in the main text near the discussion of the 5σ discrepancy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Analysis variants section] While the baseline result is near the median of variants, the manuscript should include a summary statistic (e.g., standard deviation or range) of H0 values from the ~70 variants to demonstrate the robustness quantitatively.

    Authors: We appreciate this suggestion for additional quantitative context. In the revised manuscript we will include the standard deviation and range of the H0 values across the ~70 analysis variants in the variants section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; distance ladder uses independent external anchors

full rationale

The derivation proceeds from new HST Cepheid photometry in 42 SN Ia hosts, calibrated via external geometric distances (Gaia EDR3 parallaxes for Milky Way Cepheids, maser distances in NGC 4258, and DEB distances in the LMC). These anchors are independent datasets not generated by the paper's equations or fits. Cepheid distances then set the absolute magnitude scale for the Pantheon+ SN sample (with covariance and host-matching accounted for), yielding H0 from the low-z mag-z relation. The ~70 variants test analysis choices but do not redefine inputs as outputs; the baseline H0 lies near the median without statistical forcing. No self-definitional step, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the chain. The 5-sigma tension is with an external Planck+LCDM prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on standard astrophysical assumptions about distance indicators and SN standardization, with several parameters fitted or varied across analysis choices.

free parameters (2)
  • Cepheid period-luminosity zero-point and slope
    Calibrated from anchors but allowed to vary in some analysis variants.
  • Dust extinction law parameters
    Explored through multiple variants in the analysis of dust.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Cepheids follow a universal period-luminosity relation independent of host galaxy properties after metallicity corrections
    Invoked when applying the same WFC3 filters and calibration across anchors and SN hosts.
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernovae are standardizable candles after corrections for color, light-curve shape, and host-galaxy properties
    Used to calibrate the magnitude-redshift relation from the Pantheon+ compilation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5805 in / 1585 out tokens · 58400 ms · 2026-05-12T18:01:13.498191+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 43 Pith papers

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

  1. Dispersion Measure Distribution of Unlocalized Fast Radio Bursts as a Probe of the Hubble Constant

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The DM distribution of unlocalized FRBs yields H0 = 73.8 +14.0/-12.3 km/s/Mpc with 18% uncertainty.

  2. Big Mysteries Survey: Physicists' Views on Cosmology, Black Holes, Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Gravity

    physics.soc-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A survey of physicists finds that claimed consensus positions on foundational topics often rest on pluralities or narrow majorities rather than strong field-wide agreement.

  3. Testing Dark Energy with Black Hole Ringdown

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Dynamical dark energy imprints O(1) shifts on black hole quasi-normal modes via cosmological hair, enabling constraints at 10^{-2} (LVK) to 10^{-4} (LISA) precision using the cubic Galileon as example.

  4. DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2025-03 accept novelty 7.0

    DESI DR2 BAO data exhibits 2.3 sigma tension with CMB in Lambda-CDM but prefers evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) at 3.1 sigma with CMB and 2.8-4.2 sigma when including supernovae.

  5. DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

    astro-ph.CO 2024-04 accept novelty 7.0

    First-year DESI BAO data are consistent with flat LambdaCDM and, when combined with CMB, show a 2.5-3.9 sigma preference for evolving dark energy (w0 > -1, wa < 0) that strengthens with certain supernova datasets.

  6. Primordial Black Hole from Tensor-induced Density Fluctuation: First-order Phase Transitions and Domain Walls

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Tensor perturbations from first-order phase transitions and domain wall annihilation induce curvature fluctuations at second order that form primordial black holes, allowing asteroid-mass PBHs to comprise all dark mat...

  7. The Very Late Time Afterglow of GW170817 Favors a Wobbling Jet

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A ring-shaped wobbling jet explains the shallow late-time afterglow decay of GW170817 better than a collimated jet at 4.8 sigma significance, implying a ~27 degree wobble angle.

  8. Radio sirens: inferring $H_0$ with binary black holes and neutral hydrogen in the era of the Einstein Telescope and the SKA Observatory

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Using simulated binary black hole mergers and neutral hydrogen maps, the radio sirens method constrains H0 to 8% precision with 3000 high-SNR events, offering a 90% improvement over standard dark siren analyses.

  9. Axion dark matter from extended misalignment with a constant-$\omega_\phi$ pre-oscillatory phase and dark radiation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Extended misalignment for axion-like particles with constant-ω_ϕ pre-oscillation and dark radiation coupling yields data-driven constraints favoring negative ω_ϕ and f_ϕ in [80, 1.5×10^10] TeV but does not ease cosmol...

  10. Axion dark matter from extended misalignment with a constant-$\omega_\phi$ pre-oscillatory phase and dark radiation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The extended misalignment model with constant-ω_φ pre-oscillatory phase and dark radiation coupling is constrained by cosmological data to favor negative ω_φ and f_φ in [80, 1.5×10^10] TeV without resolving H0 or S8 tensions.

  11. Geometric Constraints on the Pre-Recombination Expansion History from the Hubble Tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Model-independent reconstruction shows that early-universe modifications resolving the Hubble tension exist at the background level, requiring a smooth ~15% pre-recombination expansion rate enhancement.

  12. Into the Gompverse: A robust Gompertzian reionization model for CMB analyses

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A Gompertzian reionization model with three nuisance parameters demotes optical depth to a derived quantity, reducing its uncertainty by a factor of three and revealing potential neutrino mass tension in CMB analyses.

  13. Diagnostic Consistency Tests of the Concordance Cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A framework combining derivatives of angular diameter distance with line-of-sight expansion rate enables model-independent tests of FLRW consistency and yields a nonparametric estimator for the cosmic density field in...

  14. Non-minimally coupled quintessence with sign-switching interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new quintessence model with non-minimal coupling produces an effective sign-switching interaction that fits current data better than LambdaCDM or w0waCDM and accounts for late-time dark energy weakening without phan...

  15. Model-independent test of the cosmic distance duality relation with recent observational data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Two model-independent methods applied to latest SN and BAO data find the cosmic distance duality relation consistent with observations within 1 sigma and no evidence of violation.

  16. Model-Independent Reconstruction of Quintessence Potential and Kinetic Energy from DESI DR2 and Pantheon+ Supernovae

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Quintessence potential decreases monotonically with redshift while kinetic energy crosses zero near z=1, with negative values at intermediate redshifts being statistical artifacts from derivative reconstruction.

  17. Latent-Space Gaussian Processes for Dark-Energy Reconstruction from Observational \(H(z)\) Data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Latent-f and latent-H Gaussian process reconstructions from OHD data both yield f(z), w(z), and Om(z) consistent with Lambda-CDM, with no strong predictive preference and small prior-dependent residuals mainly at high...

  18. Alleviating the Hubble Tension Using $\Lambda$sCDM Model: A Coupled Dark Energy - Dark Matter Interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The ΛsCDM model with coupled dark sectors reduces the Hubble tension to 1.2σ via late-time expansion changes while keeping the early-universe sound horizon nearly unchanged.

  19. DESI and Gravitational Wave Constraints Challenge Quintessential {\alpha}-Attractor Inflation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Alpha-attractor quintessential inflation models are disfavored by DESI observations and Delta Neff limits from gravitational waves, as they predict an inconsistent scalar spectral index when the gravitational-wave abu...

  20. Cosmological intercept tension

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Tensions in the supernova intercept a_B at z~0.01 in PantheonPlus and z~0.1 in DES-Y5 point to data systematics or inter-survey inconsistencies rather than new physics, aligning H0 measurements and reducing support fo...

  21. The End of the First Act: Spectral Running, Interacting Dark Radiation, and the Hubble Tension in Light of ACT DR6 Data

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Including spectral running α_s, β_s and self-interacting dark radiation relaxes the ACT DR6 bound on ΔN_eff to <0.58 and lowers the Hubble tension to 2.2σ with three extra parameters.

  22. Generalizing the CPL Parametrization through Dark Sector Interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dynamical couplings in interacting dark energy models reduce deviations from LambdaCDM to 1.3-1.5 sigma and yield no Bayesian preference over the standard model.

  23. Cosmological Impact of Redshift-Dependent Type Ia Supernovae Calibration

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A phenomenological redshift-dependent SNIa magnitude correction shows no evidence in ΛCDM but is preferred at 4.3σ with dynamical dark energy, reducing Hubble tension to 1.5σ.

  24. Comment on Cosmological constraints on unimodular gravity models with diffusion (arXiv:2211.07424): thermodynamic inadmissibility of the H0 tension resolution mechanism

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Diffusion-based unimodular gravity models for the H0 tension are thermodynamically inadmissible because they require a growing effective cosmological term incompatible with the second law.

  25. Dynamical dark energy from Kretschmann scalar at low redshifts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Replacing the cosmological constant with the Kretschmann scalar yields a dynamical dark energy model that fits supernova and cosmic chronometer data and produces a phantom-crossing equation-of-state parameter w(z) sim...

  26. Emergent structure in the binary black hole mass distribution and implications for population-based cosmology

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    B-spline agnostic reconstruction of binary black hole masses from GWTC-4.0 reveals multiple features and a logarithmic hierarchy that impacts Hubble constant measurements, with a low-mass subpopulation isolation metho...

  27. Reconstructing inflationary features on large scales using genetic algorithm

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Genetic algorithm reconstructs single-field inflationary models with features in the scalar power spectrum that fit Planck 2018 CMB data better by Δχ² ≲ -10 and suggest alternative background parameters.

  28. Do equation of state parametrizations of dark energy faithfully capture the dynamics of the late universe?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Node-based reconstruction of cosmic expansion prefers stronger deceleration at z≈1.7 than smooth DE EoS parametrizations, isolating z~1.5-2 as a window where the latter may compress localized kinematic features permit...

  29. Model-Independent Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Datasets and Implications for Dark Energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Apparent dynamical dark energy signals from SNe Ia with DESI data are consistent with LambdaCDM when accounting for dataset-specific Omega_m inconsistencies rather than requiring evolving dark energy.

  30. Disentangling cosmic distance tensions with early and late dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Early dark energy resolves CMB-BAO tension and, combined with thawing quintessence, reduces overall cosmological tensions without phantom crossing.

  31. Is the $w_0w_a$CDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck PR4 CMB anisotropy data?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Planck PR4 CMB data mildly favors dynamical dark energy, but this preference weakens when accounting for possible excess smoothing, indicating the signal may partly arise from data processing issues.

  32. Cosmological Constraints from GW-FRB Associations without Redshift Measurements for LIGO-Virgo and Cosmic Explorer

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Simulations demonstrate that Cosmic Explorer can robustly constrain cosmology and host galaxy parameters from GW-FRB associations using luminosity distance-dispersion measure relations without spectroscopic redshifts,...

  33. Single field slow-roll inflation with step uplift to $n_s=1$

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Single-field slow-roll inflation achieves ns=1 by ending inflation suddenly via a large step in the potential.

  34. COOL-LAMPS IX: A Rare Duo of Quasars Each Lensed by a Single Massive Galaxy Cluster

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 accept novelty 4.0

    A single galaxy cluster lenses two quasars (one Type I at z=1.524, one dust-obscured Type II at z=1.939) into four images each, yielding a projected mass of ~3.3e14 solar masses within 500 kpc and time delays of hundr...

  35. Alleviating the Hubble Tension Using $\Lambda$sCDM Model: A Coupled Dark Energy - Dark Matter Interaction

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The ΛsCDM interacting dark sector model reduces the Hubble tension to 1.2σ via late-time energy transfer from dark matter to dark energy while leaving the sound horizon nearly unchanged.

  36. Precision Analysis for $\boldsymbol{H_0}$ Using Upcoming Multi-band Gravitational Wave Observations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Multi-band GW observations of PBHs can reduce H0 uncertainty to ≲2 km/s/Mpc (conservative) or O(0.1) km/s/Mpc (optimistic) via Fisher forecasts on M_PBH and f_PBH.

  37. Testing $\Lambda$CDM with ANN-Reconstructed Expansion History from Cosmic Chronometers

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The ANN-reconstructed Hubble parameter H(z) from cosmic chronometers aligns with Lambda CDM predictions within uncertainties.

  38. Constraining Cosmological and Astrophysical Parameters with the Cosmic Star Formation History

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Cosmic star formation history provides complementary constraints on cosmological parameters, breaking degeneracies when combined with standard probes and yielding H0 = 68.28 ± 0.18 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} with DESI data.

  39. Impact of the SNe Ia Magnitude Transition at 20 Mpc on Cosmological Parameter Estimation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A 0.19 mag step in supernova absolute magnitude at 20 Mpc improves data fit and increases the Hubble constant by 2% while leaving matter density and dark energy parameters stable.

  40. Mapping the redshift drift at various redshifts through cosmography

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Cosmographic Taylor and Padé models fitted to Pantheon+SH0ES+GRB+DESI BAO data yield redshift drift predictions compatible with ΛCDM and ω0ω1CDM at 1-2σ, with mock drift data tightening q0 and j0 bounds.

  41. Cosmological constraints on the big bang quantum cosmology model

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    The JCDM model yields H0 of 66.95 plus or minus 0.51 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m of 0.3419 plus or minus 0.0065 in a flat universe, rising to H0 of 69.13 plus or minus 0.56 with slight positive curvature, fitting late-time d...

  42. Constraining Dark Energy Dynamics in Curved Spacetime with Current Observations

    physics.gen-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Observational constraints on a dark energy EoS parametrization in curved spacetime yield α ≈ 0.35 (0.56) and Ω_k0 that changes sign with ANN data reconstruction.

  43. Observational tests of \texorpdfstring{$\Lambda(t)$}{Lambda(t)} cosmology in light of DESI DR2

    physics.gen-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    MCMC constraints on two Lambda(t) models with DESI DR2, CC, and Pantheon+ data yield H0 ~72.5-73 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m0 near standard values in joint fits, and n~0.3 indicating mild deviation from LambdaCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

144 extracted references · 144 canonical work pages · cited by 41 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Riess, A. G., & Yuan, W. 2021, arXiv, arXiv:2108.00007

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Anderson, R. I. 2019, A&A, 631, A165

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    I., & Riess, A

    Anderson, R. I., & Riess, A. G. 2018, ApJ, 861, 36

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    I., Sahlmann, J., Holl, B., et al

    Anderson, R. I., Sahlmann, J., Holl, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 804, 144 Arellano-C´ ordova, K. Z., Esteban, C., Garc´ ıa-Rojas, J., & M´ endez-Delgado, J. E. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 225

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Arenou, F., & Luri, X. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 167, Harmonizing Cosmic Distance Scales in a Post-HIPPARCOS Era, ed. D. Egret & A. Heck, 13–32

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 336, Cosmic Abundances as Records of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, ed. I. Barnes, Thomas G. & F. N. Bash, 25

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    S., Mandel, K

    Avelino, A., Friedman, A. S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 106

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    F., McArthur, B

    Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Feast, M. W., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1810

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22

    Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    P., Jensen, J

    Blakeslee, J. P., Jensen, J. B., Ma, C.-P., Milne, P. A., & Greene, J. E. 2021, ApJ, 911, 65

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    P., et al

    Blondin, S., Matheson, T., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 126

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Z., Stanek, K

    Bonanos, A. Z., Stanek, K. Z., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 175

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 565, L83

    Bono, G., Castellani, V., & Marconi, M. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 565, L83

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    Bono, G., Marconi, M., & Stellingwerf, R. F. 1999, ApJS, 122, 167

    work page 1999

  18. [18]

    2018, Statistics and Inference, Course 2018, University of Toronto

    Bovy, J. 2018, Statistics and Inference, Course 2018, University of Toronto

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    A., et al

    Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., Urbaneja, M. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 64

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    I., et al

    Breuval, L., Kervella, P., Anderson, R. I., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A115

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 38

    Breuval, L., Kervella, P., Wielg´ orski, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 38

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 26

    Brout, D., & Scolnic, D. 2021, ApJ, 909, 26

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03864

    Brout, D., Taylor, G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03864

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    W., & Riess , A

    Brownsberger, S., Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Stubbs, C. W., & Riess, A. G. 2021, arXiv, arXiv:2110.03486

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    R., Stritzinger, M., Phillips, M

    Burns, C. R., Stritzinger, M., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 19

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    R., Parent, E., Phillips, M

    Burns, C. R., Parent, E., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 56

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    work page 1989

  28. [28]

    2017, JCAP, 3, 056

    Cardona, W., Kunz, M., & Pettorino, V. 2017, JCAP, 3, 056

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.07804

    Carigi, L., Peimbert, M., & Peimbert, A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.07804

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    M., Scolnic , D., et al

    Carr, A., Davis, T. M., Scolnic, D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.01471

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    J., Lavaux, G., & Hudson, M

    Carrick, J., Turnbull, S. J., Lavaux, G., & Hudson, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 317

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    G., Anderson, J., et al

    Casertano, S., Riess, A. G., Anderson, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 11

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1522, 1

    Challis, P. 2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1522, 1

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    2011, PASP, 123, 1127

    Chen, G., & Ratra, B. 2011, PASP, 123, 1127

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 1

    Conley, A., Guy, J., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 1

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    Cox, A. N. 1993, International Astronomical Union Colloquium, 139, 261

    work page 1993

  37. [37]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384

    Curti, M., Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1384

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 54

    Dhawan, S., Brout, D., Scolnic, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 54

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    W., & Leibundgut, B

    Dhawan, S., Jha, S. W., & Leibundgut, B. 2018, A&A, 609, A72 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    A., Kewley, L

    Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Sutherland, R. S., & Nicholls, D. C. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 61

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Eddington, A. S. 1917, The Observatory, 40, 290

    work page 1917

  44. [44]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 1138 —

    Efstathiou, G. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1138 —. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3866

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 987

    Esteban, C., Fang, X., Garc´ ıa-Rojas, J., & Toribio San Cipriano, L. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 987

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 2315

    Esteban, C., & Garc´ ıa-Rojas, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 2315

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    M., Mortlock, D

    Feeney, S. M., Mortlock, D. J., & Dalmasso, N. 2017, arXiv, arXiv:1707.00007

    work page arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    A., Mould, J

    Ferrarese, L., Silbermann, N. A., Mould, J. R., et al. 2000, PASP, 112, 177

    work page 2000

  49. [49]

    1998, ApJ, 507, 655

    Ferrarese, L., Bresolin, F., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 655

    work page 1998

  50. [50]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 2866

    Fiorentino, G., Musella, I., & Marconi, M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2866

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

    work page 1999

  52. [52]

    Clayton, G. C. 2019, ApJ, 886, 108

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    M., et al

    Folatelli, G., Morrell, N., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 53 A Comprehensive Measurement of H 0 from SH0ES 67

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    2017, arXiv, arXiv:1707.01175

    Follin, B., & Knox, L. 2017, arXiv, arXiv:1707.01175

    work page arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    work page 2013

  56. [56]

    Freedman, W. L. 2021, ApJ, 919, 16

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    L., & Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 2011, ApJ, 734, 46

    work page 2011

  58. [58]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Scowcroft, V., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 24

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47

    work page 2001

  60. [60]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hatt, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 34

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    2018, A&A, 620, A99

    Gieren, W., Storm, J., Konorski, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A99

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65

    Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 13

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2018, A&A, 619, A8

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Z., & Margutti, R

    Guillochon, J., Parrent, J., Kelley, L. Z., & Margutti, R. 2017, ApJ, 835, 64

    work page 2017

  66. [66]

    2010, A&A, 523, A7

    Guy, J., Sullivan, M., Conley, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A7

    work page 2010

  67. [67]

    K., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al

    Hahn, C., Starkenburg, T. K., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., et al. 2021, arXiv, arXiv:2106.09741

    work page arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    M., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 1996, AJ, 112, 2408

    work page 1996

  69. [69]

    1926, BAN, 3, 115

    Hertzsprung, E. 1926, BAN, 3, 115

    work page 1926

  70. [70]

    C., Calabrese, E., Aiola, S., et al

    Hill, J. C., Calabrese, E., Aiola, S., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.04451 Hoffmann, S. L., Macri, L. M., Riess, A. G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 10

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    A., Burrows, C

    Holtzman, J. A., Burrows, C. J., Casertano, S., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 1065

    work page 1995

  72. [72]

    2005, PhRvD, 71, 047301

    Hu, W. 2005, PhRvD, 71, 047301

    work page 2005

  73. [73]

    D., Riess, A

    Huang, C. D., Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 5

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    P., Macri, L

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26

    work page 2012

  75. [75]

    Humphreys, E. M. L., Reid, M. J., Moran, J. M., Greenhill, L. J., & Argon, A. L. 2013, ApJ, 775, 13

    work page 2013

  76. [76]

    S., & Lee, M

    Jang, I. S., & Lee, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 836, 74

    work page 2017

  77. [77]

    S., Hoyt, T

    Jang, I. S., Hoyt, T. J., Beaton, R. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 125

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 12

    Javanmardi, B., M´ erand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 12

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    O., Riess, A

    Jones, D. O., Riess, A. G., Scolnic, D. M., et al. 2018, arXiv, arXiv:1805.05911

    work page arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 615

    Kato, D., Nagashima, C., Nagayama, T., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 615

    work page 2007

Showing first 80 references.