The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch

By W. Freedman, B. Madore, D. Hatt, Taylor J. Hoyt, I. Jang, R. Beaton, C. Burns, M. Lee, A. Monson, J. Neeley and 3 more. Astrophysical Journal, 2019

702 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present a new and independent determination of the local value of the Hubble constant based on a calibration of the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) applied to Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). We find a value of H0 = 69.8 ± 0.8 (±1.1% stat) ± 1.7 (±2.4% sys) km s−1 Mpc−1. The TRGB method is both precise and accurate and is parallel to but independent of the Cepheid distance scale. Our value sits midway in the range defined by the current Hubble tension. It agrees at the 1.2σ level with that of the Planck Collaboration et al. estimate and at the 1.7σ level with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) SHoES measurement of H0 based on the Cepheid distance scale. The TRGB distances have been measured using deep HST Advanced Camera for Surveys imaging of galaxy halos. The zero-point of the TRGB calibration is set with a distance modulus to the Large Magellanic Cloud of 18.477 ± 0.004 (stat) ± 0.020 (sys) mag, based on measurement of 20 late-type detached eclipsing binary stars, combined with an HST parallax calibration of a 3.6 μm Cepheid Leavitt law based on Spitzer observations. We anchor the TRGB distances to galaxies that extend our measurement into the Hubble flow using the recently completed Carnegie Supernova Project I ( CSP-I ) sample containing about 100 well-observed SNe Ia . There are several advantages of halo TRGB distance measurements relative to Cepheid variables; these include low halo reddening, minimal effects of crowding or blending of the photometry, only a shallow (calibrated) sensitivity to metallicity in the I band, and no need for multiple epochs of observations or concerns of different slopes with period. In addition, the host masses of our TRGB host-galaxy sample are higher, on average, than those of the Cepheid sample, better matching the range of host-galaxy masses in the CSP-I distant sample and reducing potential systematic effects in the SNe Ia measurements.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/451dc370eb3fdc2ba72c48808927ba091bf9b18a

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

1. T. Treu
2. D. Schneider
3. L. Hernquist
4. A. Riess
5. P. Hopkins
6. Will J. Percival
7. S. Vagnozzi
8. Volker Springel

Citations in the corpus

• The Ups and Downs of Early Dark Energy solutions to the Hubble tension: A review of models, hints and constraints circa 2023 (2023, methodology): “6 (sys)) km/s/Mpc [15, 26], in between the Planck CMB prediction and the SH0ES calibration measurement, and a re-analysis of the CCHP data by Anand et al.”
• Cosmology Intertwined II: The Hubble Constant Tension (2020, neutral): “[23] W.”
• TDCOSMO IV: Hierarchical time-delay cosmography -- joint inference of the Hubble constant and galaxy density profiles (2020, methodology): “The Carnegie–Chicago Hubble Project (CCHP) using the distance ladder method with SNe Ia and the tip of the red giant branch measures H0 = 69.6 ± 1.9 km s−1 Mpc−1 (Freedman et al. 2019, 2020).”
• Why reducing the cosmic sound horizon alone can not fully resolve the Hubble tension (2020, background): “(6) defines a line in the rd–H0 plane.”
• On the Hubble Constant Tension in the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample (2021, background): “Moreover, estimates of H0 based on a combination of cosmological data, including calibration of the tip of the red giant branch on SNe Ia (Freedman et al. 2019), quasars (Risaliti & Lusso 2019), time-delay measurements, cosmic chronometers, and gamma-ray bursts (GRBs; Cardone et al. 2009, 2010;…”
• The Hubble tension in light of the Full-Shape analysis of Large-Scale Structure data (2020, methodology): “They have found that upon adding to the combination of the Planck and SH0ES data other LSS data sets, such as for example BAO [66] or the DES [67] and KiDS [68] data, or Supernovae, the tension in the Hubble parameter is still persistent and 5The disagreement between the two main collaborations usin”
• Calibration of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (2003, methodology): “The difference in the current (V− I) calibration from that given in Freedman et al. (2019) is due to the small shift in MI from −4.04 (see the Appendix in Freedman et al.) to −4.05 mag, and re-centering on (V− I)=1.80 mag instead of 1.6 mag.”
• On the Evolution of the Hubble Constant with the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations: A Feasibility Study for GRB-Cosmology in 2030 (2022, methodology): “Besides, there is a series of independent probes, such as quasars [49], the Tip of the Red-Giant Branch (TRGB) calibration through SNe Ia [50], and also GRBs [18,19,51–54], which bring estimates of H0 ranging between the values obtained with local measurements (SNe Ia and Cepheids) and Baryon Acoust”