The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2606.26831 · v1 · pith:6URTNLXG · submitted 2026-06-25 · astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.SR

Distance-Ladder Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Recent Progress, Systematics, and Prospects

Xiaodian Chen , Shu Wang This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-06-26 04:14 UTCgrok-4.3pith:6URTNLXGrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.SR
keywords Hubble constantdistance ladderCepheidsTRGBHubble tensionsupernovaecosmic expansion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining seven distance-ladder routes measures the Hubble constant at 73.30 ± 0.92 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, still 5.6σ above the Planck value.

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

The paper reviews local distance-ladder measurements of the Hubble constant, which connect geometric anchors through stellar indicators to Hubble-flow objects and now reach percent-level precision. It frames the ladder as a covariance network that links the primary Cepheid-SN Ia route to six alternatives spanning level-1 and level-2 indicators. The central result is that a compact seven-route combination still yields 73.30 ± 0.92 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}. The work outlines how JWST and expanded samples could push toward one-percent local precision while testing shared systematics.

Core claim

In a compact seven-route covariance summary, combining the Cepheid--SN Ia route with three level-1 alternatives (TRGB, JAGB, and Mira) and three level-2 alternatives (SBF, Tully--Fisher, and SNe II) gives H0=73.30±0.92 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}, still 5.6σ above Planck base-ΛCDM.

What carries the argument

The covariance network connecting level-0 geometric anchors, level-1 stellar distance indicators, and level-2 Hubble-flow probes, which propagates both shared and method-specific systematics into the final H0 uncertainty.

If this is right

  • JWST observations can directly test Cepheid crowding effects and enable independent TRGB-based H0 determinations.
  • Reaching one-percent local precision requires larger calibrator samples, cross-validated level-1 zero points, and explicit covariance propagation.
  • AI-assisted, pre-specified selection criteria for distance-indicator measurements can improve reproducibility across methods.
  • The tension with Planck base-ΛCDM remains at high significance after including multiple independent routes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the covariance summary holds, the Hubble tension is unlikely to be explained solely by unrecognized systematics in any single method.
  • Cross-validation of zero points between level-1 indicators could expose hidden correlations not captured in the current network.
  • A one-percent local H0 value would sharpen tests of whether new physics is needed beyond base-ΛCDM.

Load-bearing premise

The covariance network that links the seven routes accurately captures both shared and method-specific systematics without under- or over-estimating the final uncertainty.

What would settle it

An independent measurement or re-analysis that shifts the combined seven-route H0 value to approximately 67 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} while preserving the reported uncertainties would falsify the persistent 5.6σ tension claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26831 by Shu Wang, Xiaodian Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of the Cepheid–SN Ia distance ladder based on data from Riess et al. (2022). Left: ge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A schematic view of the local distance-ladder network used throughout this review. Level-0 an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example M101 Cepheid sample in optical color–magnitude and period–Wesenheit space. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of anchoring the TRGB luminosity with an edge measurement in an NGC 4258 halo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative scatter or luminosity-function width scales for local distance indicators, compiled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative values of H0 discussed in this review. Statistical and systematic components are added in quadrature for display where papers quote them separately; the table in the text preserves the quoted decompositions. The shaded bands show Planck base ΛCDM and SH0ES 2022. Cepheid–SN Ia scale, move toward the Planck ΛCDM value, or reveal a specific systematic in one link of the ladder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Hubble constant, \(H_0\), links the nearby distance scale to the present cosmic expansion rate. Local distance-ladder measurements now reach percent-level precision and remain more than \(5\sigma\) higher than the value inferred from cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations in base-\(\Lambda\)CDM, making the reliability of the local ladder a central issue in the Hubble tension. We describe the ladder as a covariance network connecting level-0 geometric anchors, level-1 stellar distance indicators, and level-2 Hubble-flow probes. The Cepheid--Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) route remains the most precise single local ladder, but independent indicators including the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB), J-region asymptotic giant branch (JAGB) stars, Mira variables, surface-brightness fluctuations (SBF), the Tully--Fisher relation, and Type II supernovae (SNe II) now test shared and method-specific systematics. In a compact seven-route covariance summary, combining the Cepheid--SN Ia route with three level-1 alternatives (TRGB, JAGB, and Mira) and three level-2 alternatives (SBF, Tully--Fisher, and SNe II) gives \(H_0=73.30\pm0.92~{\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}\), still \(5.6\sigma\) above Planck base-\(\Lambda\)CDM. JWST has already tested Cepheid crowding and is making independent TRGB-based \(H_0\) measurements increasingly feasible. Over the next five years, a reliable one-percent local \(H_0\) requires larger calibrator samples, cross-validated level-1 zero points, explicit covariance propagation, and AI-assisted, reproducible, pre-specified selection criteria for distance-indicator measurements.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews recent local distance-ladder determinations of the Hubble constant, framing the measurements as a covariance network linking geometric anchors (level-0), stellar indicators (level-1: Cepheids, TRGB, JAGB, Mira), and Hubble-flow probes (level-2: SBF, Tully-Fisher, SNe II). It presents a compact seven-route combination yielding H0=73.30±0.92 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} that remains 5.6σ above Planck base-ΛCDM, and outlines prospects for JWST-enabled improvements.

Significance. If the covariance network is shown to be accurate, the synthesis would strengthen evidence that the local H0 value is robust against method-specific systematics, thereby sharpening the Hubble tension and motivating explicit covariance propagation in future work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / seven-route covariance summary] Abstract and seven-route covariance summary: the combined H0=73.30±0.92 (5.6σ) is stated without the explicit 7×7 covariance matrix, the list of included data points, or an error-budget breakdown, so the quoted uncertainty cannot be verified from the text.
  2. [seven-route covariance summary] The headline result is obtained by re-weighting values taken from earlier papers; the manuscript therefore inherits any fitting choices made in those source measurements without additional cross-checks or independent derivation of the off-diagonal terms.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the three level-1 and three level-2 routes could be clarified with an explicit table listing each indicator and its anchor.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on the presentation of our seven-route covariance summary. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes planned for the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / seven-route covariance summary] Abstract and seven-route covariance summary: the combined H0=73.30±0.92 (5.6σ) is stated without the explicit 7×7 covariance matrix, the list of included data points, or an error-budget breakdown, so the quoted uncertainty cannot be verified from the text.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and compact summary do not provide the full supporting details needed for independent verification. In the revised manuscript we will add a new table in the main text that lists the seven routes, their individual H0 values and uncertainties, the assumed covariance matrix (or its key off-diagonal elements), and a concise error-budget breakdown. A reference to this table will be added to the abstract. This change directly addresses the verifiability issue while preserving the compact style of the summary. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [seven-route covariance summary] The headline result is obtained by re-weighting values taken from earlier papers; the manuscript therefore inherits any fitting choices made in those source measurements without additional cross-checks or independent derivation of the off-diagonal terms.

    Authors: This accurately describes the nature of the result. The manuscript is a review that synthesizes published measurements; the covariances are taken from the source papers rather than re-derived here. We will revise the text to state this explicitly and to note that independent cross-checks of the off-diagonal terms remain an important goal for future work. No new data reduction or fitting is performed in this paper, so the synthesis nature of the combination will be clarified rather than altered. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: review compiles prior routes without self-referential derivation

full rationale

The manuscript is a review summarizing existing distance-ladder routes and presents the H0=73.30±0.92 value explicitly as the output of a compact seven-route covariance summary that combines previously published measurements (Cepheid-SN Ia plus TRGB/JAGB/Mira/SBF/TF/SNe II). No first-principles derivation, prediction, or uniqueness theorem is claimed within the paper itself; the central numerical result is a re-weighting of external inputs whose justification lies outside this work. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input renamings, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as a literature synthesis rather than a closed loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

All numerical inputs originate in prior publications; the paper itself adds no new free parameters, axioms, or entities beyond the organizational framework of the covariance network.

free parameters (1)
  • combined H0 = 73.30 ± 0.92
    Obtained by weighting seven literature routes inside the stated covariance network
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The seven-route covariance matrix correctly encodes shared and route-specific systematics
    Invoked when the abstract presents the 5.6σ tension as robust

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5867 in / 1194 out tokens · 70383 ms · 2026-06-26T04:14:13.243955+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 85 2, 30

    2017

  2. [2]

    F., Aboubrahim, A., et al

    Abdalla, E., Abell´an, G. F., Aboubrahim, A., et al. 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 34, 49 2

    2022

  3. [3]

    2021, Physical Review D, 103, 083533 2

    Alam, S., Aubin, C., Avila, S., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, 083533 2

    2021

  4. [4]

    S., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Riess, A. G., & Yuan, W. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 15 18

    2022

  5. [5]

    S., Riess, A

    Anand, G. S., Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 89 19, 22, 31

    2024

  6. [6]

    I., Saio, H., Ekstr ¨om, S., Georgy, C., & Meynet, G

    Anderson, R. I., Saio, H., Ekstr ¨om, S., Georgy, C., & Meynet, G. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 591, A8 7

    2016

  7. [7]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 253, 785 9

    1982

  8. [8]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 4 2

    Aylor, K., Joy, M., Knox, L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 874, 4 2

    2019

  9. [9]

    L., Freedman, W

    Beaton, R. L., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 210 3

    2016

  10. [10]

    F., McArthur, B

    Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Feast, M. W., et al. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 133, 1810 11

    2007

  11. [11]

    L., Verde, L., & Riess, A

    Bernal, J. L., Verde, L., & Riess, A. G. 2016, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2016, 019 2

    2016

  12. [12]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A234 7, 13

    Bhardwaj, A., Ripepi, V ., Testa, V ., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A234 7, 13

    2024

  13. [13]

    J., Gal´an, A., et al

    Birrer, S., Shajib, A. J., Gal´an, A., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A165 30

    2020

  14. [14]

    P., Jensen, J

    Blakeslee, J. P., Jensen, J. B., Ma, C.-P., Milne, P. A., & Greene, J. E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 65 3, 9, 21

    2021

  15. [15]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 1550 21

    Boubel, P., Colless, M., Said, K., & Staveley-Smith, L. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 1550 21

    2024

  16. [16]

    G., Kervella, P., et al

    Breuval, L., Riess, A. G., Kervella, P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 89 7, 24, 32

    2022

  17. [17]

    I., et al

    Breuval, L., Kervella, P., Anderson, R. I., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 38 13

    2021

  18. [18]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 26 16

    Brout, D., & Scolnic, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 26 16

    2021

  19. [19]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 110 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29

    Brout, D., Scolnic, D., Popovic, B., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 110 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29

    2022

  20. [20]

    J., & Smith, H

    Catelan, M., Pritzl, B. J., & Smith, H. A. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 154, 633 8 Distance-Ladder Measurements of the Hubble Constant 35

    2004

  21. [21]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1081 8

    Chen, X., Zhang, J., Wang, S., & Deng, L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1081 8

    2023

  22. [22]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 817 7 Cruz Reyes, M., & Anderson, R

    Chown, R., Scowcroft, V ., Chavez, J., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 817 7 Cruz Reyes, M., & Anderson, R. I. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A85 7 CSST Collaboration, Gong, Y ., Miao, H., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 239501 32 De Felice, A., Geng, C.-Q., Pookkillath, M. C., &...

    2020

  23. [23]

    S., et al

    Dhawan, S., Thorp, S., Mandel, K. S., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 235 14, 16, 26, 28, 29

    2023

  24. [24]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 2228 15 Di Valentino, E., Melchiorri, A., & Mena, O

    Dhawan, S., Goobar, A., Smith, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 2228 15 Di Valentino, E., Melchiorri, A., & Mena, O. 2017, Physical Review D, 96, 043503 2 Di Valentino, E., Anchordoqui, L. A., Akarsu, ¨O., et al. 2021a, Astroparticle Physics, 131, 102605 2 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021b, Classical...

    2022

  25. [25]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3866 2

    Efstathiou, G. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3866 2

    2021

  26. [26]

    J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al

    Foley, R. J., Scolnic, D., Rest, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 193 15

    2018

  27. [27]

    Freedman, W. L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 16 2, 17

    2021

  28. [28]

    L., & Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 050 2

    2023

  29. [29]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hoyt, T. J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 203 3, 19, 22, 28, 31

    2025

  30. [30]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Scowcroft, V ., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 24 2, 11, 28

    2012

  31. [31]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 553, 47 2, 6, 10

    2001

  32. [32]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hatt, D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 34 3, 8, 17, 28

    2019

  33. [33]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hoyt, T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 57 17, 31

    2020

  34. [34]

    G., et al

    Galbany, L., de Jaeger, T., Riess, A. G., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 679, A95 14

    2023

  35. [35]

    Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 654, A20 13

    2021

  36. [36]

    2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 466, 11 9, 14 H0DN Collaboration, Casertano, S., Anand, G

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 466, 11 9, 14 H0DN Collaboration, Casertano, S., Anand, G. S., et al. 2026, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 708, A166 22, 28, 29, 32, 33

    2007

  37. [37]

    Hamuy, M., & Pinto, P. A. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 566, L63 10, 22

    2002

  38. [38]

    R., Moran, J

    Herrnstein, J. R., Moran, J. M., Greenhill, L. J., et al. 1999, Nature, 400, 539 6 H¨og˚as, M., & M¨ortsell, E. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 883 13 H¨og˚as, M., & M¨ortsell, E. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 548, stag724 13 36 X. Chen & S. Wang

    1999

  39. [39]

    Hoyt, T. J. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 590 17, 18, 31

    2023

  40. [40]

    J., Freedman, W

    Hoyt, T. J., Freedman, W. L., Beaton, R. L., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1002, 1 19

    2026

  41. [41]

    J., Jang, I

    Hoyt, T. J., Jang, I. S., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2024, arXiv:2407.07309 19, 31

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    D., Riess, A

    Huang, C. D., Riess, A. G., Hoffmann, S. L., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 67 8, 20, 24

    2018

  43. [43]

    D., Riess, A

    Huang, C. D., Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 5 8, 20

    2020

  44. [44]

    D., Yuan, W., Riess, A

    Huang, C. D., Yuan, W., Riess, A. G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 83 8, 20, 24, 28

    2024

  45. [45]

    1926, The Astrophysical Journal, 64, 321 2

    Hubble, E. 1926, The Astrophysical Journal, 64, 321 2

    1926

  46. [46]

    1929, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15, 168 2

    Hubble, E. 1929, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15, 168 2

    1929

  47. [47]

    Humphreys, E. M. L., Reid, M. J., Moran, J. M., Greenhill, L. J., & Argon, A. L. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 13 6 Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111 15, 32

    2013

  48. [48]

    S., & Lee, M

    Jang, I. S., & Lee, M. G. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 28 8

    2017

  49. [49]

    S., Hoyt, T

    Jang, I. S., Hoyt, T. J., Beaton, R. L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 125 18, 31

    2021

  50. [50]

    B., Blakeslee, J

    Jensen, J. B., Blakeslee, J. P., Cantiello, M., et al. 2025, arXiv:2502.15935 9, 21, 22, 26, 28

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    B., Blakeslee, J

    Jensen, J. B., Blakeslee, J. P., Ma, C.-P., Greene, J. E., & Milne, P. A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 255, 21 21

    2021

  52. [52]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 89 9

    Jia, Q., Chen, X., Wang, S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 89 9

    2025

  53. [53]

    O., Scolnic, D

    Jones, D. O., Scolnic, D. M., Foley, R. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 19 15

    2019

  54. [54]

    Kamionkowski, M., & Riess, A. G. 2023, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 73, 153 2

    2023

  55. [55]

    Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 656, 661 9

    2007

  56. [56]

    2020, Physical Review D, 101, 043533 2

    Knox, L., & Millea, M. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 043533 2

    2020

  57. [57]

    B., Courtois, H

    Kourkchi, E., Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dupuy, A., & Guinet, D. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 6160 21

    2022

  58. [58]

    D., Cyr-Racine, F.-Y ., & Dor´e, O

    Kreisch, C. D., Cyr-Racine, F.-Y ., & Dor´e, O. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 123505 2

    2020

  59. [59]

    S., & Pickering, E

    Leavitt, H. S., & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1 2, 7

    1912

  60. [60]

    J., Freedman, W

    Lee, A. J., Freedman, W. L., Jang, I. S., Madore, B. F., & Owens, K. A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 132 8, 19, 20, 24

    2024

  61. [61]

    J., Freedman, W

    Lee, A. J., Freedman, W. L., Jang, I. S., Madore, B. F., & Owens, K. A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 182 20, 24

    2025

  62. [62]

    G., Freedman, W

    Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 417, 553 7, 17

    1993

  63. [63]

    G., Anand, G

    Li, S., Riess, A. G., Anand, G. S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 115 31

    2026

  64. [64]

    G., Scolnic, D., Casertano, S., & Anand, G

    Li, S., Riess, A. G., Scolnic, D., Casertano, S., & Anand, G. S. 2025b, arXiv:2502.05259 8, 20, 22, 24, 28, 31

    work page arXiv

  65. [65]

    G., Scolnic, D., et al

    Li, S., Riess, A. G., Scolnic, D., et al. 2023, arXiv:2306.10103 19

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    S., Riess, A

    Li, S., Anand, G. S., Riess, A. G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 976, 177 19, 22, 24, 31

    2024

  67. [67]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A2 6

    Lindegren, L., Hern´andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A2 6

    2018

  68. [68]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A4 6, 13, 24, 32

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 649, A4 6, 13, 24, 32

    2021

  69. [69]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 055019 9

    Liu, Y .-Q., Chen, X.-D., Wang, S., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 055019 9

    2025

  70. [70]

    Madore, B. F. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 253, 575 7

    1982

  71. [71]

    F., & Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 66 8, 19

    2020

  72. [72]

    F., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., & Owens, K. A. 2023a, arXiv:2311.05048 17

    work page arXiv

  73. [73]

    F., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., Owens, K. A., & Jang, I. S. 2023b, arXiv:2305.06195 19, 24

    work page arXiv

  74. [74]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 107 9, 14

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 107 9, 14

    2014

  75. [75]

    P., Marengo, M., Mart´ınez-V´azquez, C

    Mullen, J. P., Marengo, M., Mart´ınez-V´azquez, C. E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 83 8, 31, 32

    2023

  76. [76]

    E., Clementini, G., Sarro, L

    Muraveva, T., Delgado, H. E., Clementini, G., Sarro, L. M., & Garofalo, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of Distance-Ladder Measurements of the Hubble Constant 37 the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 1195 8

    2018

  77. [77]

    R., & El-Badry, K

    Nagarajan, P., Weisz, D. R., & El-Badry, K. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 19 31

    2022

  78. [78]

    R., Marengo, M., Bono, G., et al

    Neeley, J. R., Marengo, M., Bono, G., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 4254 8

    2019

  79. [79]

    A., Freedman, W

    Owens, K. A., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., & Lee, A. J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 8 13

    2022

  80. [80]

    2022, New Astronomy Reviews, 95, 101659 2

    Perivolaropoulos, L., & Skara, F. 2022, New Astronomy Reviews, 95, 101659 2

    2022

Showing first 80 references.