H 0 revisited

By G. Efstathiou. 2013

258 citations recorded by the source corpus.

I reanalyse the Riess et al. (2011, hereafter R11) Cepheid data using the revised geometric maser distance to NGC 4258 of Humphreys et al. (2013, hereafter H13). I explore different outlier rejection criteria designed to give a reduced χ of unity and compare the results with the R11 rejection algorithm, which produces a reduced χ that is substantially less than unity and, in some cases, leads to underestimates of the errors on parameters. I show that there are sub-luminous low metallicity Cepheids in the R11 sample that skew the global fits of the period-luminosity relation. This has a small but non-negligible impact on the global fits using NGC 4258 as a distance scale anchor, but adds a poorly constrained source of systematic error when using the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) as an anchor. I also show that the small Milky Way (MW) Cepheid sample with accurate parallax measurements leads to a distance to NGC 4258 that is in tension with the maser distance. I conclude that H0 based on the NGC 4258 maser distance is H0 = 70.6±3.3 km s−1Mpc−1, compatible within 1σ with the recent determination from Planck for the base six-parameter ΛCDM cosmology. If the H-band period-luminosity relation is assumed to be independent of metallicity and the three distance anchors are combined, I find H0 = 72.5± 2.5 km s−1Mpc−1, which differs by 1.9σ from the Planck value. The differences between the Planck results and these estimates of H0 are not large enough to provide compelling evidence for new physics at this stage.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/223e0b4e6c8c17669da8409b690e6da8489eb81c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

Citations in the corpus

Time delay cosmography (2016, methodology): “While independent measurements of the same phenomenon, or reanalysis of the same data (Freedman et al. 2012; Rigault et al. 2015; Efstathiou 2014; Spergel et al. 2015), are certainly useful and necessary, completely independent datasets based on different physical phenomena provide qualitatively…”
The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (2019, methodology): “Several reanalyses of the earlier SHoES data (e.g., Efstathiou 2014; Feeney et al. 2017; Follin & Knox 2017; Zhang et al. 2017) find statistical consistency with the original analysis of SHoES ; however, in all of these cases, the starting point is the same set of reduced data for the Cepheids as…”
A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team (2021, result): “Reanalyses of the R11 data (Fiorentino et al. 2013; Efstathiou 2014; Zhang et al. 2017) produced essentially the same results as R11, with H0 ranging from 72.5 to 76.0.”
A SHARP view of H0LiCOW: H0 from three time-delay gravitational lens systems with adaptive optics imaging (2019, background): “Similarly, the local distance ladder analyses also have passed a range of systematic checks (e.g., Efstathiou 2014; Cardona et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2017; Follin & Knox 2018; Feeney et al. 2018; Dhawan et al. 2018; Riess et al. 2019), and rule out the local void scenario (Keenan et al. 2013;…”
CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics (2016, methodology): “…on the Hubble constant and baryon density from Cepheid data and BBN. Concretely, we uniformly impose the prior 0.61 < h < 0.81, consistent with Efstathiou (2014) at 99.7 per cent confidence level (CL), and we uniformly impose the extremely conservative prior MNRAS 465, 2033–2052 (2017) 0.013…”
CONFIRMATION OF A STAR FORMATION BIAS IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA DISTANCES AND ITS EFFECT ON THE MEASUREMENT OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT (2014, methodology): “Table 6 summarizes the LSF-bias corrections for both the SH0ES11 and Efstathiou (2014) estimations of H0, when using either the megamaser or the three Cepheid anchor(s).”
Early Dark Energy can Resolve the Hubble Tension. (2018, unknown): “[7] George Efstathiou, “H0 Revisited,” Mon.”
HUBBLE PARAMETER MEASUREMENT CONSTRAINTS ON THE REDSHIFT OF THE DECELERATION–ACCELERATION TRANSITION, DYNAMICAL DARK ENERGY, AND SPACE CURVATURE (2016, result): “It is consistent with other recent local measurements of H0 (Riess et al. 2011; Freedman et al. 2012; Efstathiou 2014).”
MODEL-INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE FOR DARK ENERGY EVOLUTION FROM BARYON ACOUSTIC OSCILLATIONS (2014, unknown): “…z3) = 0.122 ± 0.012, (6) where z1 = 0, z2 = 0.57 , and z3 = 2.34, and the Hubble parameters at these redshifts are H (z = 0) = 70.6 ± 3.3 km s−1 Mpc−1 (Efstathiou 2014), H (z = 0.57) = 92.4 ± 4.5 km s−1 Mpc−1 (Samushia et al. 2013), and H (z = 2.34) = 222 ± 7 km s−1 Mpc−1 (Delubac et al.…”
Neutrino Mass Ordering from Oscillations and Beyond: 2018 Status and Future Prospects (2018, methodology): “This reanalysis (Efstathiou, 2014) considers the original Cepheid data of Riess et al. (2011) and uses a new geometric maser distance estimate to the active galaxy NGC 4,258 (Humphreys et al., 2013), which is used as a distance anchor to find a value of the Hubble constant H0 = (70.6 ± 3.3) km s−1…”
The clustering of the SDSS DR7 Main Galaxy Sample I: a 4 per cent distance measure at z=0.15 (2014, methodology): “The MGS BAO measurement therefore increases the tension between Planck+BAO measurements of H0, and those obtained using direct detection, e.g., the measurements by Efstathiou (2014) of H0 = 72.5 ± 2.5, Riess et al. (2011) of H0 = 73.8 ± 2.4, and Freedman et al. (2012) of H0 = 74.3± 2.1.”
Elucidating ΛCDM: Impact of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements on the Hubble Constant Discrepancy (2017, methodology): “The distance ladder measurements have substantially improved since the analysis by Efstathiou (2014).”
THE EXTRAGALACTIC BACKGROUND LIGHT, THE HUBBLE CONSTANT, AND ANOMALIES: CONCLUSIONS FROM 20 YEARS OF TeV GAMMA-RAY OBSERVATIONS (2015, methodology): “Accounting for both statistical and systematics uncertainties on this measurement, no tension larger than 1.4σ is observed with constraints based on the cosmic distance ladder (Efstathiou 2014) or CMB-based measurements (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014).”