Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Reassessing the Constraints from SH0ES Extragalactic Cepheid Amplitudes on Systematic Blending Bias

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 2305.14435 v3 pith:UE4PPSDV submitted 2023-05-23 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords cepheidsgammaextragalactichubbleamplitudesbiasblendingvalue
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

The SH0ES collaboration Hubble constant determination is in a ${\sim}5\sigma$ difference with the $Planck$ value, known as the Hubble tension. The accuracy of the Hubble constant measured with extragalactic Cepheids depends on robust stellar-crowding background estimation. Riess et al. (R20) compared the light curves amplitudes of extragalactic and MW Cepheids to constrain an unaccounted systematic blending bias, $\gamma=-0.029\pm0.037\,\rm{mag}$, which cannot explain the required, $\gamma=0.24\pm0.05\,\rm{mag}$, to resolve the Hubble tension. Further checks by Riess et al. demonstrate that a possible blending is not likely related to the size of the crowding correction. We repeat the R20 analysis, with the following main differences: (1) we limit the extragalactic and MW Cepheids comparison to periods $P\lesssim50\,\rm{d}$, since the number of MW Cepheids with longer periods is minimal; (2) we use publicly available data to recalibrate amplitude ratios of MW Cepheids in standard passbands; (3) we remeasure the amplitudes of Cepheids in NGC 5584 and NGC 4258 in two HST filters ($F555W$ and $F350LP$) to improve the empirical constraint on their amplitude ratio $A^{555}/A^{350}$. We show that the filter transformations introduce an ${\approx}0.04\,\rm{mag}$ uncertainty in determining $\gamma$, not included by R20. While our final estimate, $\gamma=0.013\pm0.057\,\rm{mag}$, is consistent with the value derived by R20 and is consistent with no bias, the error is somewhat larger, and the best fitting value is shifted by ${\approx}0.04\,\rm{mag}$ and closer to zero. Future observations, especially with JWST, would allow better calibration of $\gamma$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Dark Energy Crosses the Line: Quantifying and Testing the Evidence for Phantom Crossing

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using CPL fits to six data combinations, the paper finds 3.1-5.2 sigma preference for a phantom-to-quintessence crossing of the dark energy equation of state, and shows that modified non-crossing models generally fit ...

  2. Updated Constraints on Omnipotent Dark Energy: A Comprehensive Analysis with CMB and BAO Data

    gr-qc 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updated constraints on the DMS20 dark energy model from CMB, BAO, and Pantheon+ data keep it consistent with Lambda CDM while generically producing two phantom-divide crossings; the H0 tension is reduced only with enl...

  3. Alleviating the $H_0$ tension through the interacting dark energy model from quantum gravitational field theory in light of DESI DR2

    astro-ph.CO 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    With DESI DR2 BAO plus CMB and a SH0ES prior, the two-parameter eeΛCDM model gives δΛ=-0.41±0.14 and H0=71.9±1.0, easing the Hubble tension to 0.8σ, but SN datasets erase the signal.

Pith tools