Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A 5% measurement of the Hubble constant from Type II supernovae

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

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

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

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

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2203.08974 v2 pith:W72RYFW7 submitted 2022-03-16 astro-ph.CO

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords onlyconstantderivemeasurementsupernovaetrgbtypevalue
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

The most stringent local measurement of the Hubble-Lema\^itre constant from Cepheid-calibrated Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) differs from the value inferred via the cosmic microwave background radiation ({\it Planck}$+\Lambda$CDM) by $\sim 5\sigma$. This so-called "Hubble tension" has been confirmed by other independent methods, and thus does not appear to be a possible consequence of systematic errors. Here, we continue upon our prior work of using Type II supernovae to provide another, largely-independent method to measure the Hubble-Lema\^itre constant. From 13 SNe~II with geometric, Cepheid, or tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) host-galaxy distance measurements, we derive H$_0= 75.4^{+3.8}_{-3.7}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ (statistical errors only), consistent with the local measurement but in disagreement by $\sim 2.0\sigma$ with the {\it Planck}$+\Lambda$CDM value. Using only Cepheids ($N=7$), we find H$_0 = 77.6^{+5.2}_{-4.8}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$, while using only TRGB ($N=5$), we derive H$_0 = 73.1^{+5.7}_{-5.3}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$. Via 13 variants of our dataset, we derive a systematic uncertainty estimate of 1.5\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$. The median value derived from these variants differs by just 0.3\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ from that produced by our fiducial model. Because we only replace SNe~Ia with SNe~II -- and we do not find statistically significant difference between the Cepheid and TRGB H$_0$ measurements -- our work reveals no indication that SNe~Ia or Cepheids could be the sources of the "H$_0$ tension." We caution, however, that our conclusions rest upon a modest calibrator sample; as this sample grows in the future, our results should be verified.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Hubble tension: a short review of theoretical explanations

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

    A comprehensive review finds no theoretical Hubble-tension solution yet passes all consistency tests; new early-dark-energy chains reach high H0 only when the SH0ES calibration is added.

  2. Two Dynamical Scenarios for Binned Master Sample Interpretation

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A model where dark energy is created by gravity and interacts with matter can mimic the decreasing running Hubble constant seen in binned supernovae, but only after its free parameter is tuned to that same trend.

  3. The Hubble tension: A decade review

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Pure early or late fixes to the Hubble tension are tightly constrained; remaining options are combined early-late interacting dark energy or new physics at the local-to-homogeneous transition.

Pith tools