Envisioning the Distance Ladder in the Era of the Habitable Worlds Observatory

Adam Riess; Gagandeep Anand; Joseph Jensen; Meredith Durbin; Rachael Beaton

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Envisioning the Distance Ladder in the Era of the Habitable Worlds Observatory

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-step distance ladder could pin H0 to 1% without supernovae

desk verdict Useful, concrete HWO observing program for a two-rung 1% H0 ladder; the error budget is clean, but the feasibility rests on one unvalidated two-hour exposure estimate that should be flagged and sensitivity-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02056 v1 pith:BZ42MANI submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.IM

Gagandeep Anand , Meredith Durbin , Rachael Beaton , Joseph Jensen , Adam Riess This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.IM

keywords cosmicdistanceladderHubbleconstantCepheidvariablesHabitableWorldsObservatorytensionTypeIasupernovaetipoftheredgiantbranchRRLyrae

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that NASA's planned Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) will have enough sensitivity and angular resolution to measure Cepheid variable stars in galaxies out to 100 Mpc, far enough into the Hubble flow that galaxy velocities no longer dominate the distance estimate. That reach would let astronomers build a two-step cosmic distance ladder — geometric anchor distances plus Cepheid period–luminosity relations — and skip the Type Ia supernova rung of the current three-step ladder. Working through an SH0ES-style error budget, the authors find that about 24 Cepheid host galaxies would give a 1% measurement of the Hubble constant, with 96 galaxies needed to repeat the measurement in each quadrant of the sky as a test for local large-scale structure. They also lay out the observing costs, such as roughly 24 hours per galaxy to sample Cepheid light curves, and caution that the bright stars in nearby geometric anchors are the hardest objects for HWO to observe. The payoff would be an H0 determination free of supernova-systematic uncertainties, directly bearing on the Hubble tension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-step distance ladder built on the Cepheid period–luminosity relation (the Leavitt Law), which links a Cepheid's pulsation period to its mean luminosity. The paper's specific contribution is showing that HWO's sensitivity and resolution make this relation usable at 100 Mpc, where redshift rather than peculiar velocity defines the Hubble flow, and combining it with an explicit SH0ES-style error budget to solve for the required sample size. The budget's dominant terms are the period–luminosity scatter $\sigma_{PL}\/\sqrt{N} \sim 2.6\%\/\sqrt{N}$, the peculiar-velocity term $2.5\%\/\sqrt{N}$, and a 0.3% slope term between anchors and hosts; setting the quadrature sum to 1% gives $N \approx 24$ hosts, and multiplying by four sky quadrants gives 96 for a large-scale-structure test. The exposure-time estimates rely on a modified exposure-time calculator that adopts a photometric aperture of 0.75 times the point-spread-function full-width at half-maximum, matching the signal-to-noise ratio achievable with PSF-weighted photometry; this aperture choice is what turns the 2-hour-per-epoch, 12-epoch Cepheid budget at 100 Mpc into 24 hours per galaxy.

What would settle it

Run an end-to-end simulation of a 2-hour, 6-meter HWO exposure of a P>10-day Cepheid at 100 Mpc in V with a realistic detector and PSF model: if the recovered signal-to-noise ratio is below 10, the 24-hour-per-galaxy budget fails and the proposed 24- or 96-galaxy samples can no longer deliver a 1% H0 measurement. A complementary check is whether each host galaxy at 100 Mpc actually contains at least 25 Cepheids with well-sampled light curves, since fewer per host would inflate the $\sigma_{PL}\/\sqrt{N}$ term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HWO can reduce the extragalactic distance ladder from three rungs to two. With a 6-meter diffraction-limited aperture and stable point-spread functions, HWO would resolve individual Cepheids in galaxies at 100 Mpc, where the peculiar-velocity term falls to about $2.5\%\/\sqrt{N}$ for a sample of $N$ hosts. Adopting the SH0ES error budget, the authors find that the dominant second-rung uncertainties — the period–luminosity (Leavitt Law) scatter of about $2.6\%\/\sqrt{N}$, the peculiar-velocity term $2.5\%\/\sqrt{N}$, a 0.3% slope term between anchors and hosts, and a 0.3% analysis-systematics term — sum to 1% when $N = 24$ Cepheid hosts are observed, assuming at least 25 Cepheids per galaxy and an anchor-rung uncertainty of 0.5% or better. Expanding to $N = 96$ hosts gives a 1% H0 measurement independently in each quadrant of the sky, a built-in test of systematics from local large-scale structure. The same capabilities would also measure tip-of-the-red-giant-branch and J-AGB distances in the same galaxies and, with about half an hour of exposure, detect RR Lyrae stars out to 7 Mpc for low-mass dwarf galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a 6-meter HWO will actually deliver the sensitivity and stable image quality assumed in the exposure-time calculation, so that a Cepheid at 100 Mpc reaches a signal-to-noise ratio of 10 in 2 hours in V using a 0.75-FWHM photometric aperture; if the real telescope has worse image stability, different detector noise, or a smaller effective aperture, the 24-hour-per-galaxy budget and the 24- or 96-galaxy samples no longer guarantee a 1% H0 measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If HWO performs as assumed, H0 can be measured to 1% using only geometric anchors and Cepheids, with no Type Ia supernovae in the ladder.
A 96-galaxy program yields four independent 1% H0 measurements, one per quadrant of the sky, directly testing for systematic errors from local large-scale structure.
The same observations would measure Cepheid, TRGB, and J-AGB distances in the same galaxies, letting astronomers cross-check stellar-population systematics in a single pointing.
RR Lyrae stars would become distance indicators out to 7 Mpc, opening distance measurements to the faintest dwarf galaxies found by future surveys.
Surface brightness fluctuations, calibrated by Cepheid or TRGB distances, would extend the HWO distance ladder to several hundred Mpc.

Reading between the lines

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

A further implication is that a supernova-free 1% H0 measurement would give the Hubble tension a calibration path whose systematics are entirely independent of the supernova-rung effects that differ between current HST and JWST results.
The proposed budget implies a large total time cost — roughly 24 hours per galaxy times 96 galaxies, about 2,300 hours for the quadrant test — which would have to compete with other HWO science programs in the time-allocation process.
If the 0.75-FWHM aperture assumption is validated, the same PSF-photometry technique could be applied to archival JWST data to push existing Cepheid samples to larger distances than currently possible.
A testable extension is to use the 96-galaxy quadrant subsets to map the local peculiar-velocity field, since the difference between photometric distances and redshift-derived distances is itself a velocity measurement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is the first HWO-era distance ladder design I've seen that actually puts numbers on the table. It's a planning document, not a measurement, and it does what planning documents should: it turns 'HWO will be great for cosmology' into a specific program with exposure times, a sample of 96 Cepheid hosts divided into sky quadrants, and a transparent error budget. The error budget is internally consistent: 0.5% anchor, 2.6%/sqrt(N) PL scatter, 0.3% slope, 2.5%/sqrt(N) peculiar velocity, and 0.3% analysis sum to about 1% for N=24. The quadrant idea for testing large-scale structure systematics is sensible, and the instrument requirements table plus the RR Lyrae section are genuinely useful.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points: the 2-hour per epoch exposure time for a 100 Mpc Cepheid at S/N=10 comes from a modified syotools ETC whose configuration is not archived. It uses a 0.75 FWHM extraction aperture recommended for JWST, not demonstrated for HWO. No sensitivity analysis accompanies the quoted times, and the point-source calculation ignores crowding, PSF instability over 12 epochs, and the fact that the Cepheid needs to be seen near minimum light, roughly 1.5 mag fainter. The paper itself admits detector characteristics are unknown. If the real telescope is slightly worse, that 2h becomes 4-6h, and the 24h per galaxy program becomes 50-75h, which could kill the 96-galaxy sample. This is not a fatal flaw for a design study - the authors are upfront that they're setting requirements - but it is load-bearing, and it should be addressed by publishing the ETC configuration and adding a sensitivity table around the exposure times.

The anchor uncertainty is adopted from SH0ES-style values, which is fine for planning, but it means the 1% claim is conditional on current anchor knowledge. I also note the paper says it 'bypasses SNe Ia completely,' which is the main simplification, but it's stated clearly and the error budget reflects it.

Who gets value: mission planners, distance ladder practitioners, and anyone writing HWO science cases. It's well-written, honest about unknowns (the bright-star saturation problem in Section 4.2 is a nice catch), and the central arithmetic is reproducible. I'd send this to peer review; a serious referee should ask for the ETC transparency and sensitivity analysis, but the core design is worth engaging with.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a science case for using the future Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) to measure the Hubble constant to 1% with a reduced two-rung distance ladder, bypassing Type Ia supernovae. Section 2 outlines the scientific rationale, emphasizing HWO's ability to resolve Cepheids at 100 Mpc. Section 3 builds an uncertainty budget from adopted SH0ES-like terms: a 0.5% anchor, 2.6%/sqrt(N) period-luminosity scatter, 0.3% slope, 2.5%/sqrt(N) peculiar velocity, and 0.3% analysis systematics. For N=24 host galaxies this quadrature sum is about 1%, and N=96 would allow a quadrant-by-quadrant test. Section 4 presents an exposure-time estimate of 2 hours per epoch for a Cepheid at 100 Mpc based on a modified syotools ETC, plus considerations for TRGB, J-AGB, RR Lyrae, and geometric anchors. The paper concludes that a 6m HWO with diffraction-limited optical imaging could realize this program.

Significance. If the exposure-time estimates hold, the paper outlines a credible path to a 1% H0 measurement with no SNe Ia rung, which would provide a powerful independent check on the Hubble tension. The error budget is transparent, internally consistent, and easy to reproduce: for N=24 the quoted terms sum in quadrature to 0.99%. The proposal of a 96-galaxy quadrant sample to test local large-scale structure is a valuable design feature. The paper also gives a concrete list of instrument capabilities (pixel scale, PSF FWHM, filter set, FOV) that can guide HWO planning. The main weakness is that the exposure-time estimate is not validated or sensitivity-tested, and the error budget omits the large-scale structure systematic it itself flags.

major comments (4)

[§4.1, footnote 1] The central feasibility claim rests on the 2-hour exposure time for a Cepheid at 100 Mpc, computed with a small modification to the syotools HWO ETC that is not archived and uses a 0.75 FWHM extraction aperture recommended for JWST (Savino et al. 2024) without a demonstration that this aperture is optimal for HWO's PSF or that the detector and sky model are realistic. The paper should provide a full description of the ETC modifications, a sensitivity analysis over PSF FWHM, aperture size, detector noise, and crowding, and ideally a public reproduction script, since a factor-of-several error in this estimate would turn the 24-hour-per-galaxy program into an unrealistic one.
[§4.1] The S/N=10 estimate is quoted for a Cepheid at its average absolute magnitude of MV=-4, but a 12-epoch light curve requires epochs near minimum light, where the same star is roughly 1.0-1.5 mag fainter. At minimum, the 2-hour exposure would deliver S/N of only about 2-3, which is insufficient for the precision photometry needed for period determination; the paper should specify whether the 2-hour figure is meant to hold at minimum light and, if not, present a phase-resolved exposure time calculation.
[§3.4] The paper concludes that '24 Cepheid host galaxies will be sufficient' for a 1% H0 measurement, but the quadrature sum of 0.99% excludes the 'systematic uncertainty from local large-scale structure' that the same section describes as likely. The proposed 96-galaxy quadrant sample tests for such a systematic but does not remove it from the quoted 1% error budget; the paper should either incorporate a quantitative LSS term into the error budget or state the 1% claim as conditional on LSS being negligible or fully modeled.
[§3.3] The peculiar-velocity term is entered as 2.5%/sqrt(N), which assumes that residual peculiar velocities of the host galaxies are independent. Galaxies within a sky quadrant at 100 Mpc share coherent large-scale flows, so the effective number of independent measurements may be smaller than N; the paper should justify the sqrt(N) scaling with a correlation length argument or adopt a covariance model for the peculiar velocity field.

minor comments (6)

[§2.3] Section 2.3 contains a typo: 'dervied' should be 'derived'.
[§3.1] Section 3.1 contains 'contraints' should be 'constraints'.
[§2.1] Section 2.1 has 'an galaxy's observed velocity' which should be 'a galaxy's observed velocity'.
[§4.1] Section 4.1: 'J Halone' should likely read 'J alone'.
[§2.1, Figure 1] The caption gives MV=-6.5 and -5.1 for the Cepheid at maximum and minimum, while the text states an average MV=-4 for P>10 d Cepheids; the figure's period or the magnitude convention should be clarified.
[§4] The paper does not aggregate the total observing time for the program (e.g., 24 hosts × 12 epochs × three bands, plus TRGB exposures); a summary of total time would aid mission planning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the N=24 and N=96 conclusions are transparent arithmetic from adopted literature error terms, not fitted to reproduce the 1% target.

full rationale

The paper is a planning calculation rather than an empirical derivation. Section 3.1 explicitly states that it follows the SH0ES error budget and adopts the anchor, P-L scatter, slope, peculiar-velocity, and analysis-systematic terms. Section 3.4 then solves for the number of Cepheid hosts needed to reach a 1% total uncertainty (N=24 per quadrant, 96 for four quadrants). This is a forward arithmetic consequence of the stated inputs: total uncertainty = sqrt(0.5^2 + (2.6/sqrt(N))^2 + 0.3^2 + (2.5/sqrt(N))^2 + 0.3^2), which yields N~24. The target 1% is an externally imposed requirement, not a parameter fitted to the authors' own output. The only same-community dependence is the use of SH0ES empirical uncertainty values (Riess et al. 2022, with Riess as a contributing author), but those are published measurements used as assumptions, not an unverified self-citation invoked to forbid alternatives. The 2-hour exposure-time estimate for a 100 Mpc Cepheid (Section 4.1, footnote 1) rests on a modified syotools ETC and a Savino et al. (2024) aperture prescription; this is an independent instrument model, and while it is a real feasibility risk, it is not a circular reduction of the paper's conclusion to its inputs. The paper is also candid about limitations: Section 4.2 states that detector characteristics are not yet known well enough to make concrete predictions for bright sources, and Table 2 lists diffraction-limited optical imaging as 'Major Progress (Breakthrough)'. These are acknowledged gaps in support, not circular steps. No equation in the paper is definitionally identical to another, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central claim is a new, self-contained arithmetic result built on explicitly stated external inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a feasibility forecast; its numerical output (N = 24 or 96 galaxies) follows from adopting literature-based uncertainty terms and assumed sensitivity values. These inputs are not fitted to data in this paper, but they are hand-adopted and unvalidated in the HWO context. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

Anchor uncertainty (HWO-era goal) = 0.5%
The paper assumes geometric anchor uncertainty can improve from the current 0.6% to 0.5% with additional eclipsing-binary anchors. This term enters the quadrature sum that yields N = 24.
Cepheid period-luminosity scatter = 2.6% per galaxy before sqrt(N)
Adopted from SH0ES as the per-galaxy scatter in the Cepheid period-luminosity relation; it directly controls the host count through 2.6%/sqrt(N).
Per-galaxy peculiar velocity residual = 2.5% at 80-100 Mpc
Assumed as 150 km/s over 6000 km/s in Section 3.3; no uncertainty is quoted for this correction, and it enters the error budget as 2.5%/sqrt(N).
Analysis systematics = 0.3%
Adopted equal to the HST-only SH0ES term for Cepheid metallicity and crowding corrections; not derived in this paper.
P-L slope uncertainty between anchors and hosts = 0.3%
Conservatively set to the current SH0ES value in Section 3.3; contributes directly to the total error budget.
Cepheid exposure time per epoch = 2 hours in V for S/N = 10 at 100 Mpc
Computed with the modified syotools ETC; the total 24 hours per galaxy and the feasibility of the 96-galaxy plan depend on this sensitivity estimate.

assumptions (5)

standard math Independent Gaussian error propagation for all adopted uncertainty terms.
The paper combines anchor, PL, slope, peculiar velocity, and analysis terms in quadrature to obtain the 1% total; this assumes independence and normality of the terms.
domain assumption HWO will have a ~6m aperture with diffraction-limited optical imaging and high PSF stability.
Assumed throughout Section 4 and Table 2 for all exposure time and resolution claims.
domain assumption Cepheid Leavitt Law, TRGB, and J-AGB standard candles remain valid at 100 Mpc with the same systematics as in the local universe.
The two-rung ladder relies on these calibrated relations; any distance-dependent breakdown would invalidate the plan.
domain assumption Peculiar velocity maps can correct individual galaxy redshifts to a residual of 2.5% per galaxy.
Section 3.3 states the residual is of order 2.5% per galaxy and cites peculiar velocity map works; this is not demonstrated for HWO-era samples.
domain assumption At least 25 Cepheids per host and 24 suitable host galaxies per sky quadrant exist.
The error budget requires 25 Cepheids per galaxy, and the sample selection in Section 4 and Figure 5 assumes such hosts are available with the requested morphology and inclination cuts.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Envisioning the Distance Ladder in the Era of the Habitable Worlds Observatory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZ42MANI

@misc{pith2026250702056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Envisioning the Distance Ladder in the Era of the Habitable Worlds Observatory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZ42MANI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02056}
}

abstract

The current state-of-the-art cosmic distance ladder requires three rungs--geometric distances, primary indicators, and Type Ia Supernovae--to achieve a 1% measurement of the Hubble constant $H_0$. The Habitable Worlds Observatory will have the sensitivity and resolution to reduce this to a two-step measurement, eliminating the third rung entirely and reaching into the Hubble flow with stellar distance indicators such as Cepheid variables and the tip of the red giant branch alone. We discuss the requirements for a program to measure $H_0$ to 1% with HWO here, including telescope and instrument design considerations. We also comment on the potential of HWO to measure distances to low-mass dwarf galaxies via their RR Lyrae stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02056 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** — Absolute color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of the Large Magellanic Cloud highlighting the four stellar distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** — Demonstrations of detecting the TRGB (left) and J-AGB (right) in the LMC via their respective luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: — A comparison of state-of-the-art geometric distances that serve to anchor the distance scale and their current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: — An example Cepheid host galaxy selection for a two-rung, 1% determination of the Hubble constant in each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: — Example Cepheid light curves (left) and period-luminosity relations (right) in the blue-optical through near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: — Geometric distances can be determined using spectrophotometric characterization of detached eclipsing binaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

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.

Two per cent measurement of $H_0$ from Cepheids alone
astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A Cepheid-only distance ladder with rigorous selection modelling and BORG-based peculiar velocities yields H0 = 71.7 +/- 1.3 km/s/Mpc, in mild tension with SH0ES and in ~3 sigma tension with Planck.
The Perfect Host: JWST Cepheid Observations in a Background-Free SN Ia Host Confirm No Bias in Hubble-Constant Measurements
astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

JWST Cepheid distances in a background-free galaxy match HST distances, ruling out crowding as the cause of the Hubble tension.
Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to NGC 1316, NGC 1380, NGC 1404, & NGC 4457: A Pilot Study of a Parallel Distance Ladder Using Type Ia Supernovae in Early-Type Host Galaxies
astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A distance ladder using TRGB-calibrated SNe Ia only in massive, quiescent galaxies gives H0 = 75.3 ± 2.9 km/s/Mpc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

S., Tully, R

Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 15

work page 2022
[2]

S., Riess, A

Anand, G. S., Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 89

work page 2024
[3]

L., Freedman, W

Beaton, R. L., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 210

work page 2016
[4]

P., Jensen, J

Blakeslee, J. P., Jensen, J. B., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 65

work page 2021
[5]

Z., Stanek, K

Bonanos, A. Z., Stanek, K. Z., Kudritzki, R. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 313

work page 2006
[6]

2024, MNRAS, 531, 84

Boubel, P., Colless, M., Said, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 84

work page 2024
[7]

G., Casertano, S., et al

Breuval, L., Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 30

work page 2024
[8]

2022, ApJ, 938, 111

Brout, D., Taylor, G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 111

2022

Show all 55 references

[9]

2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261

Catelan, M. 2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261

2009
[10]

Catelan, M., & Smith, H. A. 2015, Pulsating Stars (Wienheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH)

2015
[11]

Cioni, M. R. L., Clementini, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2011, A&A, 527, A116

2011
[12]

M., Dupuy, A., Guinet, D., et al

Courtois, H. M., Dupuy, A., Guinet, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L15

2023
[13]

J., Williams, B

Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Melbourne, J. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 198, 6 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025 Di Valentino, E., & Brout, D., eds. 2024, The Hubble Con- stant Tension, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology (Springer)

2012
[14]

J., Beaton, R

Durbin, M. J., Beaton, R. L., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 57

2020
[15]

L., & Madore, B

Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 2020, ApJ, 899, 67

2020
[16]

L., Madore, B

Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hoyt, T. J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 203 12 G. Anand, M. Durbin, R. Beaton et al

2025
[17]

2017, ApJ, 837, 7

Graczyk, D., Konorski, P., Pietrzy´nski, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 7

2017
[18]

J., Jang, I

Hoyt, T. J., Jang, I. S., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 111

2024
[19]

D., Yuan, W., Riess, A

Huang, C. D., Yuan, W., Riess, A. G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 83

2024
[20]

S., Hatt, D., Beaton, R

Jang, I. S., Hatt, D., Beaton, R. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 60

2018
[21]

S., Hoyt, T

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

2021
[22]

B., Tonry, J

Jensen, J. B., Tonry, J. L., Barris, B. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 712

2003
[23]

J., Freedman, W

Lee, A. J., Freedman, W. L., Jang, I. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 132

2024
[24]

J., Freedman, W

Lee, A. J., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 182

2025
[25]

J., Rousseau-Nepton, L., Freedman, W

Lee, A. J., Rousseau-Nepton, L., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 201

2022
[26]

H., Koppenhoefer, J., Seitz, S., et al

Lee, C. H., Koppenhoefer, J., Seitz, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 22

2014
[27]

G., Casertano, S., et al

Li, S., Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 20

2024
[28]

G., Scolnic, D., et al

Li, S., Riess, A. G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2025

2025
[29]

2016, A&A, 595, A4

Lindegren, L., Lammers, U., Bastian, U., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A4

2016
[30]

Madore, B. F. 1982, ApJ, 253, 575

1982
[31]

F., & Freedman, W

Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 1995, AJ, 109, 1645

1995
[32]

McQuinn, K. B. W., Boyer, M., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 63

2019
[33]

2022, Universe, 8, 191

Monelli, M., & Fiorentino, G. 2022, Universe, 8, 191

2022
[34]

J., Crnojevi´c, D., et al

Mutlu-Pakdil, B., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi´c, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 88 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press)

2021
[35]

W., Braatz, J

Pesce, D. W., Braatz, J. A., Reid, M. J., et al. 2020, ApJL, 891, L1 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gieren, W., et al. 2013, Nature, 495, 76 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200

2020
[36]

2023, ApJ, 945, 84

Popovic, B., Brout, D., Kessler, R., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 84

2023
[37]

G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al

Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 126

2018
[38]

G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L7

2022
[39]

G., Scolnic, D., Anand, G

Riess, A. G., Scolnic, D., Anand, G. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 120

2024
[40]

2021, MNRAS, 508, 4047

Ripepi, V ., Catanzaro, G., Molinaro, R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4047

2021
[41]

2020, A&A, 640, A2 —

Salsi, A., Nardetto, N., Mourard, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A2 —. 2021, A&A, 652, A26

2020
[42]

R., Skillman, E

Savino, A., Weisz, D. R., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 101

2022
[43]

E., et al

Savino, A., Gennaro, M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 36

2024
[44]

2019, Lecture notes in Relativistic Cosmology, Uni- versity of Bath

Scowcroft, V . 2019, Lecture notes in Relativistic Cosmology, Uni- versity of Bath. https://vickyscowcroft.github. io/PH40112_rmd/

2019
[45]

L., Madore, B

Scowcroft, V ., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 49

2016
[46]

2017, A&A, 606, A33

Serenelli, A., Weiss, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2017, A&A, 606, A33

2017
[47]

Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375

2019
[48]

M., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al

Skowron, D. M., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 23 Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., Szyma ´nski, M. K., et al. 2016, AcA, 66, 131 —. 2017, AcA, 67, 103

2021
[49]

Tonry, J., & Schneider, D. P. 1988, AJ, 96, 807

1988
[50]

K., & Szyma ´nski, G

Udalski, A., Szyma´nski, M. K., & Szyma ´nski, G. 2015, AcA, 65, 1

2015
[51]

K., et al

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

2008
[52]

2010, A&A, 509, A70

Vilardell, F., Ribas, I., Jordi, C., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A70

2010
[53]

J., et al

Watkins, R., Allen, T., Bradford, C. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1885

2023
[54]

G., et al

Wu, J., Scolnic, D., Riess, A. G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 87

2023
[55]

2014, ApJ, 784, 76

Yang, S.-C., Wagner-Kaiser, R., Sarajedini, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 76

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S., Tully, R

Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 15

work page 2022

[2] [2]

S., Riess, A

Anand, G. S., Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 89

work page 2024

[3] [3]

L., Freedman, W

Beaton, R. L., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 210

work page 2016

[4] [4]

P., Jensen, J

Blakeslee, J. P., Jensen, J. B., Ma, C.-P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 65

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Z., Stanek, K

Bonanos, A. Z., Stanek, K. Z., Kudritzki, R. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 313

work page 2006

[6] [6]

2024, MNRAS, 531, 84

Boubel, P., Colless, M., Said, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 84

work page 2024

[7] [7]

G., Casertano, S., et al

Breuval, L., Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 30

work page 2024

[8] [8]

2022, ApJ, 938, 111

Brout, D., Taylor, G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 111

2022