pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.04774 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

First measurement of the Hubble constant from a combined weak lensing and gravitational-wave standard siren analysis

Felipe Andrade-Oliveira , David Sanchez-Cid , Danny Laghi , Marcelle Soares-Santos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 16:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords Hubble constantstandard sirensweak lensinggravitational wavesgalaxy clusteringmatter densityjoint analysiscosmological parameters
0
0 comments X

The pith

A joint analysis of gravitational-wave standard sirens with weak lensing and galaxy clustering data measures the Hubble constant at 67.9 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} with 6.4 percent uncertainty.

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

The paper carries out the first combined cosmological fit that multiplies the likelihood from gravitational-wave standard sirens with the three two-point correlation functions from weak lensing and galaxy clustering. It draws on the full gravitational-wave transient catalog together with host-galaxy redshift and jet-inclination data for the single well-observed event. The fit returns H0 equal to 67.9 with uncertainties of +4.4 and -4.3 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} while tightening the constraint on the matter density parameter Omega_m by 22 percent relative to the lensing and clustering data alone. Removing the jet inclination information widens the H0 uncertainty to 9.9 percent. The work shows that standard-siren distances can be folded directly into the analysis pipelines used for large cosmic surveys.

Core claim

The authors construct a joint likelihood that combines the distance posterior from gravitational-wave standard sirens, including the inclination constraint from the superluminal jet of GW170817, with the 3x2pt weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering likelihood. This produces H0 = 67.9^{+4.4}_{-4.3} km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} at 6.4 percent precision and improves the Omega_m constraint by 22 percent. The measurement remains consistent with other current determinations of the Hubble constant.

What carries the argument

The product of the standard-siren distance likelihood and the survey 3x2pt correlation-function likelihood, with the two datasets treated as statistically independent.

If this is right

  • Standard sirens can be added to the cosmology pipelines of large galaxy surveys without requiring new hardware.
  • The Hubble constant can be measured to 6.4 percent using existing gravitational-wave and survey catalogs.
  • The matter density parameter Omega_m gains a 22 percent tighter bound from the combined data.
  • Future gravitational-wave catalogs and survey releases will increase the precision of this joint approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method offers an independent distance ladder that does not rely on the same calibration steps as Cepheid or supernova measurements.
  • As the number of gravitational-wave events grows, the same framework can be applied to multiple sirens to reach sub-percent precision on H0.
  • The approach can be tested by splitting the gravitational-wave sample into events with and without electromagnetic follow-up to check for hidden biases.

Load-bearing premise

The standard-siren likelihood and the weak-lensing plus clustering likelihood share no correlated systematics.

What would settle it

Detection of a statistically significant correlation between the gravitational-wave distance residuals and the lensing observables, or an independent H0 value lying well outside the reported 67.9^{+4.4}_{-4.3} interval, would falsify the joint result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04774 by Danny Laghi, David Sanchez-Cid, Felipe Andrade-Oliveira, Marcelle Soares-Santos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows our combined measurement as well as the con￾tributions of each major component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows our results in the H0–Ωm plane. Summary statistics for Ωm are also provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a new measurement of the Hubble constant ($H_0$) resulting from the first joint analysis of standard sirens with weak gravitational lensing and galaxy clustering observables comprising three two-point correlation functions (3$\times$2pt). For the 3$\times$2pt component of the analysis, we use data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 3 release. For the standard sirens component, we use data from the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog 4.0 released by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) Collaboration. For GW170817, the only standard siren for which extensive electromagnetic follow-up observations exist, we also use measurements of the host galaxy redshift and inclination angle estimates derived from observations of a superluminal jet from its remnant. Our joint analysis yields $H_0 = 67.9^{+4.4}_{-4.3}$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$, a $6.4\%$ measurement, while improving the DES constraint on the total abundance of matter $\Omega_m$ by $22\%$. Removing the jet information degrades the $H_0$ precision to $9.9\%$. The measurement of $H_0$ remains a central problem in cosmology with a multitude of approaches being vigorously pursued in the community aiming to reconcile significantly discrepant measurements at the percent-level. In light of the impending new data releases from DES and LVK, and anticipating much more constraining power from 3$\times$2pt observables using newly commissioned survey instruments, we demonstrate that incorporating standard sirens into the cosmology framework of large cosmic surveys is a viable route towards that goal.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first joint cosmological analysis combining gravitational-wave standard sirens from the LVK GWTC-4.0 catalog with DES Year 3 3×2pt weak-lensing and galaxy-clustering data. The authors multiply the respective likelihoods to obtain H0 = 67.9^{+4.4}_{-4.3} km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} (6.4% precision) while reporting a 22% tightening of the DES constraint on Ω_m; removing the GW170817 jet-inclination information degrades the H0 precision to 9.9%.

Significance. If the independence assumption between the datasets holds, the work demonstrates a concrete route for incorporating standard sirens into the analysis pipelines of future wide-field surveys, potentially improving H0 constraints without requiring new instrumentation. The use of public catalogs, the explicit test removing jet information, and the focus on a single well-observed event are strengths that make the approach reproducible and extensible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Joint Likelihood] The joint posterior is obtained by multiplying the standard-siren likelihood and the DES 3×2pt likelihood (described in the Methods and Results sections). No cross-covariance matrix, mock-catalog validation, or null test is provided to justify the statistical independence assumption, despite overlapping redshift ranges between GW events and DES fields. This assumption directly determines the reported 6.4% H0 uncertainty and the 22% improvement on Ω_m, so its validity is load-bearing for the central claims.
  2. [Data and Likelihood for GW170817] For GW170817 the analysis incorporates the jet-inclination-derived distance and host redshift. No test is shown for possible residual correlations between these waveform-derived quantities and the DES lensing observables that could arise from shared large-scale structure or selection effects.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states a 22% improvement on Ω_m but does not specify the baseline DES-only uncertainty value or the exact parameter combination used for the comparison; add this explicit number in the text.
  2. [Standard Sirens Component] Clarify whether the standard-siren likelihood includes the full GWTC-4.0 catalog or only a subset, and state the precise form of the distance posterior used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below. Where the manuscript requires strengthening, we have revised it accordingly; where full quantitative validation exceeds the scope of this work, we provide the strongest honest justification possible based on the data properties.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Joint Likelihood] The joint posterior is obtained by multiplying the standard-siren likelihood and the DES 3×2pt likelihood (described in the Methods and Results sections). No cross-covariance matrix, mock-catalog validation, or null test is provided to justify the statistical independence assumption, despite overlapping redshift ranges between GW events and DES fields. This assumption directly determines the reported 6.4% H0 uncertainty and the 22% improvement on Ω_m, so its validity is load-bearing for the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit justification of the independence assumption is warranted. The standard-siren likelihood is driven by a single low-redshift event (GW170817) whose sky localization is a small fraction of the DES footprint, while the DES 3×2pt constraints are statistical averages over thousands of square degrees. Given the extreme sparsity of GW detections relative to the DES galaxy sample, any shared large-scale structure covariance is expected to be negligible compared with the reported uncertainties. We will add a new subsection to the Methods section that (i) states the independence assumption explicitly, (ii) provides a qualitative argument based on the differing selection functions and number densities, and (iii) includes an order-of-magnitude estimate demonstrating that the cross-term is sub-dominant. A full mock-catalog validation or cross-covariance matrix, however, would require joint simulations that are not available in the present analysis. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Data and Likelihood for GW170817] For GW170817 the analysis incorporates the jet-inclination-derived distance and host redshift. No test is shown for possible residual correlations between these waveform-derived quantities and the DES lensing observables that could arise from shared large-scale structure or selection effects.

    Authors: The jet inclination is obtained from VLBI observations of the superluminal jet, and the host redshift is a spectroscopic measurement of NGC 4993; both are independent of the DES weak-lensing and clustering pipelines. The host galaxy constitutes a single object within the DES sample of millions, so its contribution to the global 3×2pt statistics is negligible. We will add a concise paragraph in the Data section explaining these points and confirming that no measurable bias is introduced at the current precision. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Full mock-catalog validation or explicit computation of a cross-covariance matrix between the GW standard-siren and DES 3×2pt likelihoods, which would require dedicated joint simulations beyond the scope of this first demonstration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard product of independent public-data likelihoods

full rationale

The derivation consists of a conventional Bayesian combination L_joint = L_siren(GWTC-4.0 + GW170817 EM data) × L_DES(Y3 3×2pt) under an explicit independence assumption. The reported H0 = 67.9^{+4.4}_{-4.3} posterior and the 22% tightening of Ω_m are direct numerical outputs of this product applied to external catalogs; no equation re-expresses the result as a function of itself, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on standard cosmological modeling assumptions rather than new free parameters or invented entities beyond the usual cosmological parameters being fit.

free parameters (2)
  • H0
    Primary parameter of interest; its posterior is reported directly from the joint fit.
  • Omega_m
    Matter density parameter whose constraint is improved by the joint analysis.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gravitational-wave waveform models accurately recover luminosity distance
    Invoked for all standard-siren events including the special treatment of GW170817.
  • domain assumption DES 3x2pt covariance and modeling are unbiased
    The joint fit inherits the validity of the published DES Year 3 3x2pt analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5622 in / 1506 out tokens · 40994 ms · 2026-05-16T16:30:09.844094+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Prospects for multi-messenger discovery of the gravitational-wave background anisotropies via cross-correlation with galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New simulations show that cross-correlating gravitational wave background anisotropies with galaxy distributions can enable discovery at angular scales of 4-6 degrees with next-generation observatories.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aasi, J. et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025b [arXiv:2509.04348]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025c [arXiv:2508.18081]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025d [arXiv:2508.18083]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025e [arXiv:2508.18082]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 909, 218

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Abbott, R. et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 76

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Abbott, T. M. C. et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Acernese, F. et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Aghanim, N. et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Akutsu, T. et al. 2021, PTEP, 2021, 05A101

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Amon, A. et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023514

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    A., & Fang, X

    Blazek, J., MacCrann, N., Troxel, M. A., & Fang, X. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103506

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    R., Alfradique, V ., Palmese, A., et al

    Bom, C. R., Alfradique, V ., Palmese, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 961

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Camphuis, E. et al. 2025 [arXiv:2506.20707]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    J., Lavaux, G., & Hudson, M

    Carrick, J., Turnbull, S. J., Lavaux, G., & Hudson, M. J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 317

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Casertano, S. et al. 2025 [arXiv:2510.23823]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Cawthon, R. et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5517

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    C., Huchra, J

    Crook, A. C., Huchra, J. P., Martimbeau, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 790 de Matos, I. S., Dalang, C., Baker, T., et al. 2025 [arXiv:2512.15380] De Vicente, J., Sánchez, E., & Sevilla-Noarbe, I. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3078 Di Valentino, E. & Brout, D., eds. 2024, The Hubble Constant Tension (Springer)

    work page arXiv 2007

  21. [21]

    Efstathiou and S

    Efstathiou, G. & Gratton, S. 2019, JCAP [arXiv:1910.00483]

    work page arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Elvin-Poole, J. et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3649

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Essick, R. et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 102001

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 2699

    Fang, X., Eifler, T., & Krause, E. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2699

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    M., Fishbach, M., Essick, R., Holz, D

    Farah, A. M., Fishbach, M., Essick, R., Holz, D. E., & Galaudage, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 108

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    2021, JCAP, 08, 026

    Finke, A., Foffa, S., Iacovelli, F., Maggiore, M., & Mancarella, M. 2021, JCAP, 08, 026

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Fishbach, M., Essick, R., & Holz, D. E. 2020, ApJ, 899, L8

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 150

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Friedrich, O. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3125

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Gatti, M. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4312

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Gatti, M. et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 063504

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Giannini, G. et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2010

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 1127

    Gray, R., Messenger, C., & Veitch, J. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1127

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Gray, R. et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 122001

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Gray, R. et al. 2023, JCAP, 12, 023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Heymans, C. et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A140

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Holz, D. E. & Hughes, S. A. 2005, ApJ, 629, 15

    work page 2005

  38. [38]

    2019, Nature Astron., 3, 940

    Hotokezaka, K., Nakar, E., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 3, 940

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Hou, Z. et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 853, 3

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 4539

    Karathanasis, C., Mukherjee, S., & Mastrogiovanni, S. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4539

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    & Eifler, T

    Krause, E. & Eifler, T. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2100

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Krause, E. et al. 2021 [arXiv:2105.13548]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3181

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Louis, T. et al. 2025, JCAP, 11, 062

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    MacCrann, N. et al. 2021, MNRAS, 509, 3371

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    & Essick, R

    Mali, U. & Essick, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, 85

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    M., & Gair, J

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1086

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    2023, Phys

    Mastrogiovanni, S., Laghi, D., Gray, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 042002

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Miyatake, H. et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123517

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 355

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    D., & Silk, J

    Mukherjee, S., Krolewski, A., Wandelt, B. D., & Silk, J. 2024, Astrophys. J., 975, 189 Müller, M., Mukherjee, S., & Ryan, G. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 977, L45

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    R., Mucesh, S., & Hartley, W

    Palmese, A., Bom, C. R., Mucesh, S., & Hartley, W. G. 2023, ApJ, 943, 56

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Pandey, S. et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043520

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Porredon, A. et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 043503

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Porredon, A. et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 103530

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Prat, J. et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 083528

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    2024 [arXiv:2409.09101]

    Raveri, M., Doux, C., & Pandey, S. 2024 [arXiv:2409.09101]

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Riess, A. G. et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 934, L7 Rodríguez-Monroy, M. et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2665

    work page 2022

  59. [59]

    Secco, L. F. et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023515

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Sevilla-Noarbe, I. et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 254, 24

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Soares-Santos, M. et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 876, L7

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects

    Vitale, S., Gerosa, D., Farr, W. M., & Taylor, S. R. 2020 [arXiv:2007.05579]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Wright, A. H. et al. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 703, A158

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    2015, Astron

    Zuntz, J., Paterno, M., Jennings, E., et al. 2015, Astron. Comput., 12, 45 Article number, page 5

    work page 2015