Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

JAGB 2.0: Improved Constraints on the J-region Asymptotic Giant Branch-based Hubble Constant from an Expanded Sample of JWST Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read An expanded JWST JAGB sample gives H0 = 73.3 ± 1.4 (stat) ± 2.0 (sys) km/s/Mpc, with JAGB distances agreeing with Cepheids to within 0.03 mag.

desk verdict A careful, transparent extension of JAGB distances with a headline H0 that is shakier than the Cepheid cross-check; the paper deserves serious referee attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05259 v2 pith:PEFWBKXO submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Siyang Li , Adam G. Riess , Daniel Scolnic , Stefano Casertano , Gagandeep S. Anand This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords HubbleconstantJ-regionAsymptoticGiantBranch(JAGB)carbonstarsTypeIasupernovaedistanceladderJWSTNIRCamphotometryNGC4258maseranchorluminosityfunctionasymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper expands the J-region Asymptotic Giant Branch (JAGB) distance method—a near-infrared clump of carbon-rich stars used as a standard candle—to a combined JWST sample of 15 galaxies hosting 18 Type Ia supernovae, all calibrated to the maser galaxy NGC 4258. It argues that JAGB distances agree with HST Cepheid distances at the level of −0.03 ± 0.02 (stat) ± 0.05 (sys) mag, and uses the middle of all JAGB measures to calibrate supernovae to H0 = 73.3 ± 1.4 (stat) ± 2.0 (sys) km/s/Mpc. The result matters because JAGB is an independent rung of the distance ladder; if true, it keeps the locally measured Hubble constant near 73 km/s/Mpc and shows no sign of a Cepheid-specific error. The paper also reports that the largest systematic is internal to the anchor itself: two fields in NGC 4258 yield JAGB modes differing by 0.11 ± 0.02 mag, and the shape of the J-region luminosity function varies from galaxy to galaxy.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the J-region luminosity function: the near-infrared brightness distribution of carbon-rich asymptotic giant branch stars selected in a color-magnitude box (F150W versus F150W−F277W, color cuts 1.0–1.5 mag, magnitude cuts about 5σ around the clump). The machinery is the comparison of 25 measurement variants—five statistics (median, clipped mean, mode with 0.25 and 0.35 mag smoothing, and a Gaussian-plus-quadratic model fit) crossed with five color ranges—measured identically in the anchor and each host. Distances are formed by subtracting the anchor JAGB from each host JAGB and adding the NGC 4258 maser distance; this relative, differential construction is what lets part of the luminosity-function asymmetry cancel along the ladder, and the spread across variants is what sets the systematic uncertainty.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to measure JAGB in two or more widely separated outer-disk fields of a single non-anchor SN Ia host at similar galactocentric radius: if the two fields disagree by more than about 0.1 mag, as the NGC 4258 inner and outer fields do, the single-value calibration premise fails. Alternatively, a galaxy with a geometric distance independent of the distance ladder—such as a second water-maser galaxy—could be used to require anchor-field JAGB zero-points to agree to well under 0.05 mag.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the JAGB standard candle, measured with JWST in 15 galaxies hosting 18 Type Ia supernovae and anchored to the water-maser galaxy NGC 4258, gives distances consistent with HST Cepheids and a Hubble constant of H0 = 73.3 ± 1.4 (stat) ± 2.0 (sys) km/s/Mpc. The authors report a weighted mean JAGB-minus-Cepheid distance difference of −0.03 ± 0.02 (stat) ± 0.05 (sys) mag—that is, no significant offset between the two distance indicators. They also report that the dominant systematic is internal to the anchor: the JAGB mode measured in two NGC 4258 fields differs by 0.11 ± 0.022 mag, and J-region luminosity functions vary in skew, color slope, and mode-minus-mean offset from galaxy to galaxy, so different measurement statistics shift H0 by about 4 km/s/Mpc. The authors adopt the middle of all measurement variants as the baseline distance and conservatively assign 0.06 mag (roughly 2 km/s/Mpc) of intrinsic variation to the error budget.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, after cutting to the outer disk, a fixed color range, and a magnitude window, the clump of carbon-rich stars used as the standard candle has the same characteristic brightness in the anchor galaxy NGC 4258 and in every supernova host galaxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • JAGB distances to 15 galaxies hosting 18 Type Ia supernovae agree with HST Cepheid distances at a weighted mean of −0.03 ± 0.02 (stat) ± 0.05 (sys) mag.
  • The middle JAGB measure calibrates SNe Ia to H0 = 73.3 ± 1.4 (stat) ± 2.0 (sys) km/s/Mpc, while using only the mode gives 71.2 ± 1.4 km/s/Mpc.
  • The largest systematic in JAGB-based H0 is the 0.11 ± 0.02 mag field-to-field difference of the JAGB mode in NGC 4258, motivating a conservative 0.06 mag intrinsic-variation uncertainty corresponding to about 2 km/s/Mpc.
  • JWST observations at about 40 Mpc (NGC 5468 and NGC 3147) approach the practical incompleteness limit, and one of the two targets cannot yield a robust JAGB measurement at the current exposure depth.
  • No standardizing relation between JAGB luminosity-function skew, color dependence, and distance is found in the current sample.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the field-to-field JAGB variation seen in NGC 4258 is an intrinsic property of galaxies rather than a measurement artifact, then anchoring to any single galaxy imposes a floor on absolute calibration that more host statistics cannot remove; a multi-anchor approach using other geometric calibrators would be a direct test.
  • The presence of carbon Miras in the J-region suggests a stellar-physics route to standardization: if the Mira fraction can be measured or removed through variability or period-luminosity information, part of the luminosity-function asymmetry and the resulting variant spread could shrink.
  • The failure to find a skew-based standardizer may be sample-size limited; with roughly a dozen distances, a modest correlation between skew and JAGB offset would be difficult to detect, and targeted JWST observations of additional hosts could reveal one.
  • The 0.05 mag distance offset between the authors' remeasurement of the comparison-program hosts and the published modes is tied directly to the NGC 4258 calibration choice, implying that future JAGB comparisons should report anchor-field-specific distances rather than a single averaged anchor value.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper extends JAGB-based distance measurements to new JWST Cycle 2 SN Ia hosts, combines them with published JAGB samples from the SH0ES and CCHP programs, and uses the combined sample to calibrate SNe Ia and measure the Hubble constant. The authors report no significant mean offset between JAGB and HST Cepheid distances (-0.03 ± 0.02 stat ± 0.05 sys mag), but find significant field-to-field differences in the JAGB zero-point within NGC 4258, the maser anchor, and galaxy-to-galaxy variations in the JAGB luminosity function shape and skew. Their nominal result, H0 = 73.3 ± 1.4 (stat) ± 2.0 (sys) km/s/Mpc, is obtained by taking the "middle" of 25 measurement variants; using only the mode gives H0 = 71.2 ± 1.4 km/s/Mpc. The paper is transparent about these variant differences and about the failure to recover a robust JAGB measurement in NGC 3147.

Significance. If the reported result holds, this is a significant step in using JAGB as an independent rung on the distance ladder: the expanded JWST sample nearly triples the number of JAGB-calibrated SN Ia hosts and provides the first consistency check at distances beyond 32 mag. The paper is also valuable for its detailed treatment of incompleteness, crowding corrections, and the explicit documentation of field-to-field and method-to-method variation in the JAGB zero-point. The finding that JAGB distances agree with HST Cepheids at the ~0.05 mag level is an important cross-check of the Cepheid-based ladder. However, the central H0 value is sensitive to the arbitrary choice of the "middle" of variants, and the adopted systematic uncertainty is smaller than the measured NGC 4258 field-to-field offset, so the paper's headline number is not yet on as firm a footing as its valuable observational and methodological contributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 / Sec. 2.5] The nominal H0 = 73.3 km/s/Mpc is derived from the "middle" of 25 measurement variants, but the paper does not provide a physical or statistical justification for why this statistic should equal the true universal JAGB zero-point. The sensitivity is large: replacing the middle with the mode changes H0 from 73.3 to 71.2 km/s/Mpc, a shift equal to the entire quoted systematic. Moreover, Sec. 5.2 and Fig. 11 show that the mode is the measure that best matches HST Cepheid distances in F150W. The choice of the middle therefore directly determines the central claim, and the paper's own cross-check favors a different measure; this needs either a defended physical rationale or an expansion of the systematic error budget that fully covers the mode-middle difference.
  2. [Sec. 4.2 / Sec. 5.1.1 / Fig. 7] The adopted systematic floor of 0.06 mag (Sec. 4.2) is smaller than the measured 0.11 ± 0.022 mag difference between the CCHP Inner and Outer fields of NGC 4258 (Sec. 5.1.1, Fig. 9), and Fig. 7 shows comparable dispersion among SH0ES East/West fields. The paper argues that non-mode measures reduce the field-to-field difference, but this is an argument in favor of a specific measure, not an estimate of the uncertainty in the zero-point transfer. Because the systematic is estimated from the same data that define the variants, and because the field-to-field offset is three times larger than the quoted systematic, the quoted 0.06 mag does not appear to cover the dominant source of absolute calibration error identified by the authors themselves.
  3. [Sec. 2.5 / Sec. 5.1.3 / Sec. 4.2] The distance ladder step in Sec. 2.5 assumes that after outer-disk, color, and magnitude cuts, the JAGB zero-point is identical in NGC 4258 and in every SN Ia host. The paper's own diagnostics stress this assumption: Sec. 5.1.3 reports tilted J-regions with slopes up to 7 sigma, Fig. 2/Fig. 4 show galaxy-to-galaxy variation in skew and mode-mean differences, and Sec. 4.2 states that no standardizing relation is found. Partial cancellation of LF asymmetry along the ladder is not guaranteed when the anchor is a large, nearby galaxy observed with only partial field coverage, while distant hosts are observed with different spatial coverage and different completeness properties. The central claim would be more robust if the H0 result were demonstrated to be stable under a physically motivated subset of variants or under an explicit treatment of the field-to-field zero-point uncertainty.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 1 / Sec. 2.2] There are several typographical errors: "photometery" (Sec. 2.2), "aysmpototic" (Sec. 5.1.2), and "as-of-yet unpublished" in the footnote of Sec. 5.2 should be "as-yet unpublished." These do not affect the science but should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix B / Table 6] The galaxy NGC 5468 is referred to as "NGC 5458" in at least one place in Appendix B and as "NGC 5468" elsewhere; this should be made consistent.
  3. [Sec. 2.5 / Eq. (1)] Equation (1) adds the statistical uncertainties sigma_stat,N4258 and sigma_stat,host as if they are independent, but the text notes that the maximum statistical uncertainty across variants is used. It would be clearer to state explicitly whether the maximum or the standard error of the mean is adopted for each term, and to define sigma_var as the standard deviation of the middle values in distance space rather than in magnitude space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the JAGB distances are differential against NGC 4258 and compared with independent Cepheid and SN Ia data; the self-citations provide methodology and comparison distances but are not load-bearing inputs to the central result.

full rationale

The paper's distance construction is explicitly differential: host JAGB measurements are tied to the NGC 4258 JAGB and the external maser distance (Reid et al. 2019), and the Hubble constant is obtained by calibrating SNe Ia with those distances and the published Hubble-diagram intercept (Section 4.1, Eq. 2). No equation in the derivation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict. The JAGB-Cepheid comparison uses published HST Cepheid distances (Riess et al. 2022, 2024a) that were not fitted from the JAGB measurements; the paper reports both middle-based and mode-based differences, both consistent with zero, and the mode variant that best matches Cepheids is not the one adopted for the nominal H0. Self-citations to Li et al. (2024a) supply the measurement-variant framework and prior JAGB distances, but these are methodological antecedents rather than circular inputs: the new host measurements are new photometry, and the CCHP JAGB modes are independently remeasured from published photometry with <0.01 mag agreement. The paper's own internal diagnostics, such as the 0.11 +/- 0.022 mag field-to-field offset in NGC 4258 and the failure to find a standardizing relation for LF skew, are reported as systematics and stress the universality assumption, but they do not make the derivation circular; they are correctness risks. The score reflects the presence of same-team citations and shared analysis infrastructure, not a demonstrated reduction of any prediction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The result is an empirical distance-ladder measurement, not a first-principles derivation. It relies on the established JAGB standard-candle premise, the maser anchor, DOLPHOT artificial-star corrections, the SN Ia intercept, and foreground extinction maps. The free parameters listed are mostly transparent methodological choices; the most consequential is the fiducial "middle" estimator and the self-estimated 0.06 mag systematic. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Fiducial JAGB estimator ("middle of variants") = H0 = 73.3 km/s/Mpc baseline
    The middle of 25 measurement variants is adopted because no physical standardizing relation is found; choosing the mode changes H0 to 71.2, so the fiducial choice is data-driven and affects the central claim.
  • Mode smoothing scale = s = 0.25 and 0.35 mag
    Two smoothing widths for the mode estimator from Li et al. (2024a); the resulting spread is folded into the variant scatter.
  • Baseline color window = 1.0 < F150W - F277W < 1.5 mag
    Chosen to isolate the J-region; five color windows are used to estimate methodological spread, but the baseline is a hand-selected range.
  • Intrinsic variation systematic floor = 0.06 mag (about 2.0 km/s/Mpc)
    Assigned from the observed field-to-field and variant scatter in the same sample; it is an estimate rather than an externally calibrated uncertainty and may not fully cover the 0.11 mag NGC 4258 field difference.
  • Completeness robustness threshold = SNR > 10 at JAGB + 1 mag
    Introduced when deciding that NGC 3147 cannot yield a robust JAGB; the threshold is set after examining the data quality.
  • NGC 3370 crowd cut adjustment = crowd < 0.4 in F277W
    Ad hoc change for one galaxy to remove an artificial CMD cutoff; the authors state they separately correct for crowding.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The JAGB is a universal standard candle: the intrinsic J-region luminosity function has the same reference magnitude in the outer disks of all galaxies.
    Foundational premise of the method; invoked throughout Section 2.5 when distances are tied to NGC 4258. The paper's own field-to-field difference in NGC 4258 and LF shape variations directly stress this assumption.
  • domain assumption The geometric maser distance to NGC 4258, 29.398 mag from Reid et al. (2019), is correct.
    Used as the absolute anchor for all JAGB distances and for H0; its 0.032 mag uncertainty is added to the H0 error budget but omitted from galaxy-to-galaxy comparisons.
  • domain assumption DOLPHOT artificial star tests provide unbiased crowding and completeness corrections.
    Crowding corrections (Section 2.3) and completeness corrections (Appendix B) rely on this; if artificial stars do not mimic real star recovery, corrected luminosity functions are biased.
  • domain assumption Type Ia supernova standardization and the Hubble diagram intercept aB = 0.71448 from Riess et al. (2022) apply to this sample.
    Section 4.1 combines JAGB distances with the SN intercept to derive H0; errors in the SN absolute calibration propagate directly into H0.
  • domain assumption Foreground extinction from Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011) with the Fitzpatrick (1999) Rv = 3.1 law is correct for these fields.
    Applied in Section 2.1; the uncertainty is estimated as 15% of the extinction, a heuristic rather than a measured calibration.
  • domain assumption Variable carbon Miras either do not dominate the J-region or their effect is captured by the variant spread and systematic floor.
    Section 5.1.2 shows many carbon Miras occupy the J-region and can contribute to LF asymmetry; the analysis does not remove them, relying on the 0.06 mag systematic to cover their effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JAGB 2.0: Improved Constraints on the J-region Asymptotic Giant Branch-based Hubble Constant from an Expanded Sample of JWST Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEFWBKXO

@misc{pith2026250205259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JAGB 2.0: Improved Constraints on the J-region Asymptotic Giant Branch-based Hubble Constant from an Expanded Sample of JWST Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEFWBKXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05259}
}
abstract

The J-region Asymptotic Giant Branch (JAGB) is an overdensity of stars in the near-infrared, attributed to carbon-rich asymptotic giant branch stars, and recently used as a standard candle for measuring extragalactic distances and the Hubble constant. Using JWST in Cycle 2, we extend JAGB measurements to 6 hosts of 9 Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) (NGC 2525, NGC 3147, NGC 3370, NGC 3447, NGC 5468, and NGC 5861), with two at $D \sim 40$ Mpc, all calibrated by the maser host NGC 4258. We investigate the effects of incompleteness and find that we are unable to recover a robust JAGB measurement in one of the two most distant hosts at $R \sim 40$ Mpc, NGC 3147. We compile all JWST JAGB observations in SNe Ia hosts, 15 galaxies hosting 18 SNe Ia, from the SH0ES and CCHP programs and employ all literature measures (mode, mean, median, model). We find no significant mean difference between these distances and those from HST Cepheids, $-0.03\pm0.02$ (stat) $\pm$ 0.05 (sys) mag. We find a difference of 0.11 $\pm$ 0.02 mag between JAGB mode measurements in the CCHP analyses of two fields in NGC 4258, a feature also seen in two SH0ES fields (see field-to-field variations in Li et al. 2024a), indicating significant field-to-field variation of JAGB measurements in NGC 4258 which produce a large absolute calibration uncertainty. Variations are also seen in the shape of the JAGB LF across galaxies so that different measures produce different values of the Hubble constant. We look for but do not (yet) find a standardizing relation between JAGB LF skew or color dependence and the apparent variation. Using the middle result of all JAGB measures to calibrate SNe Ia yields a Hubble constant of $H_0$ = 73.3 $\pm$ 1.4 (stat) $\pm$ 2.0 (sys) km/s/Mpc with the systematic dominated by apparent differences across NGC 4258 calibrating fields or their measures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Footprints of the observations for NGC 2525, NGC 3370, NGC 3447, NGC 5861, NGC 3147, and NGC 5468 used for this study. JWST NIRCam modules corresponds to green squares, and JAGB reference magnitudes are measured using stars in the regions outside the dashed red ellipses. Observations for NGC 5468 were taken in two epochs, with overlapping footprints for NGC 5468. Observations of NGC 4258, which are used to anchor th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color magnitude diagrams and luminosity functions for NGC 2525, NGC 3370, NGC 5861, NGC 3147, NGC 3447, and NGC 5468. The left panels of each plot show the F150W vs. F150W − F277W color magnitude diagrams after foreground extinction and crowding corrections. The vertical blue dashed lines use the color cuts of 1.0 < F150W − F277W < 1.5 mag and magnitude cuts ∼5 σ from the anticipated JAGB, selected to fully encapsul… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The left two subplots show the JAGB reference magnitudes as a function of the 25 measurement variants, as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color magnitude diagrams and luminosity functions for NGC 4258 (Inner and Outer fields), M101, NGC 1365, NGC 2442, NGC 4536, NGC 4639, NGC 5643, and NGC 7250 from Lee et al. (2024b) beyond the JAGB measurement minimum radii. The left panels of each plot show the color …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Difference between the measured JAGB (using the measurement variants, i.e. median, clipped mean, mode (s=0.25 and 0.35 mag), and model fit) and median JAGB for the galaxies analyzed in Lee et al. (2024b). The middle values and standard deviations across variants are li…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Difference between the JAGB distance found here and the Cepheids distances from Riess et al. (2024a) plotted as a function of host SNe Ia magnitude. The red dashed lines are plotted at a JAGB - Cepheid difference of zero for reference, and the blue lines show the weigh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Difference between the middle JAGB across variants for the CCHP and SH0ES observations of NGC 4258 and measurement method in the CCHP Inner and Outer, and SH0ES East and West, separately. The middle measured using after combining the Inner and Outer fields for CCHP and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Skew, mode minus mean magnitudes, and J￾region slopes as a function of distances to all galaxies as well as intercomparison . The distances were compiled from Li et al. (2024a); Lee et al. (2024b); Freedman et al. (2024), and here. 5. DISCUSSION These methodological va…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: In the left and middle subplots, CMDs and luminosity functions for the Inner and Outer fields from Lee et al. (2024b) and observations footprints taken from the same paper. For the two subplots on the right, dashed blue lines show the color and magnitude cuts used for …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: J vs. J − K color magnitude diagram us￾ing the LMC catalog from Macri et al. (2015). We overplot the Oxygen and Carbon Miras from Yuan et al. (2017) and find that a large number of Carbon Miras, which follow a pe￾riod luminosity relationship instead of having constant…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: We first measure the differences between the JAGB and Cepheid (Riess et al. (2022); fit variant 10, also provided in the Appendix in Riess et al. 2024a) distances for all galaxies using the five measurement measure and baseline color ranges. We then take the median of…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of JWST JAGB distances drawn from the results here, Li et al. (2024a), and CCHP (Lee et al. 2024b; Freedman et al. 2024) plotted against HST Cepheid distances, fit variant 10, from Riess et al. (2022). We use fit variant 10 for this comparison to remain con…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Color magnitude diagrams and luminosity functions for NGC 5643 using crossmatched stars between observations taken in JWST program GO-1685 (Riess et al. 2021) and GO-1995 (Freedman et al. 2021). The left panels of each plot show the color magnitude diagrams after fore…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Interpolated completeness fractions (color scale set by the color bar at the bottom) across magnitude and color for the galaxies analyzed in this study. J-region luminosity functions for each galaxy in 0.01 mag bins are plotted in the right panels of each subplot. var…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Recovered SNR from artificial star tests across magnitude and color for the galaxies analyzed in this study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Luminosity functions for NGC 4258, NGC 2525, NGC 3370, NGC 5861, NGC 3147, and NGC 5468 before and after incompleteness corrections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: JAGB reference magnitudes as a function of the 25 measurement variants listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: JAGB-based distances to NGC 3370, NGC 3447, NGC 5861, and NGC 5468 plotted against the 25 measurement variants listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Absolute Calibration of Cluster Mira Variables to Provide a New Anchor for the Hubble Constant Determination

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Mira variables in globular clusters are used as a new, independent distance anchor, yielding a 3.7% Hubble constant of 73.06 ± 2.67 km/s/Mpc.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Y<Q =.> X@ (9Bfxx0@l ߴ)qy p,

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2022, , 664, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243595

    Abia , C., de Laverny , P., Romero-G \'o mez , M., & Figueras , F. 2022, , 664, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243595

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243595 2022

  5. [5]

    S., Riess , A

    Anand , G. S., Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., et al. 2024, , 966, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0a 2024

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    2005, , 442, 159, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053357

    Battinelli , P., & Demers , S. 2005, , 442, 159, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053357

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    S., et al

    Breuval , L., Riess , A., Anand , G. S., et al. 2023, A 1\

    2023

  3. [11]

    G., Casertano , S., et al

    Breuval , L., Riess , A. G., Casertano , S., et al. 2024, , 973, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad630e

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Aaronson , M., & Norris , J

    Cook , K. H., Aaronson , M., & Norris , J. 1986, , 305, 634, 10.1086/164277

    1986 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    Di Valentino , E., Mena , O., Pan , S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin , A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013. 1608.013

    2016

  7. [15]

    Dolphin , A. E. 2000, , 112, 1383, 10.1086/316630

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    2002, , 332, 91, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05271.x

    ---. 2002, , 332, 91, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05271.x

    2002

  9. [17]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63, 10.1086/316293

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    L., & Madore , B

    Freedman , W. L., & Madore , B. F. 2020, , 899, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba9d8

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Madore , B

    Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., Hoyt , T., et al. 2021, Answering the Most Important Problem in Cosmology Today: Is the Tension in the Hubble Constant Real? , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1995

    2021

  12. [20]

    L., Madore , B

    Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., Jang , I. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06153. 2408.06153

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    L., Madore , B

    Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., Hoyt , T., et al. 2020, , 891, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7339

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    B., et al

    Graczyk , D., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Thompson , I. B., et al. 2020, , 904, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb2b

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Karakas , A. I. 2014, , 445, 347, 10.1093/mnras/stu1727

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Lee , A. J. 2023, , 956, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/acee69

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Freedman , W

    Lee , A. J., Freedman , W. L., Jang , I. S., Madore , B. F., & Owens , K. A. 2024 a , , 961, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12c7

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Freedman , W

    Lee , A. J., Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03474, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03474

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2021 a , , 907, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd253

    ---. 2021 a , , 907, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd253

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Freedman , W

    Lee , A. J., Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., Owens , K. A., & Sung Jang , I. 2021 b , , 923, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f4c

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Rousseau-Nepton , L., Freedman , W

    Lee , A. J., Rousseau-Nepton , L., Freedman , W. L., et al. 2022, , 933, 201, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7321

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Monson , A

    Lee , A. J., Monson , A. J., Freedman , W. L., et al. 2024 c , , 967, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32c7

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Casertano , S., et al

    Li , S., Riess , A. G., Casertano , S., et al. 2024 a , , 966, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f2b

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    G., Scolnic , D., et al

    Li , S., Riess , A. G., Scolnic , D., et al. 2023, , 956, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf4fb

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    S., Riess , A

    Li , S., Anand , G. S., Riess , A. G., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.00065, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.00065

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    M., Ngeow , C.-C., Kanbur , S

    Macri , L. M., Ngeow , C.-C., Kanbur , S. M., Mahzooni , S., & Smitka , M. T. 2015, , 149, 117, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/117

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    F., & Freedman , W

    Madore , B. F., & Freedman , W. L. 2020, , 899, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba045

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Freedman , W

    Madore , B. F., Freedman , W. L., Lee , A. J., & Owens , K. 2022, , 938, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac92fd

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    2010, , 405, 1025, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16486.x

    M \'e nard , B., Scranton , R., Fukugita , M., & Richards , G. 2010, , 405, 1025, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16486.x

    2010

  30. [38]

    H., Cannon , R

    Morgan , D. H., Cannon , R. D., Hatzidimitriou , D., & Croke , B. F. W. 2003, , 341, 534, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06424.x

    2003

  31. [39]

    S., Riess , A

    Murakami , Y. S., Riess , A. G., Stahl , B. E., et al. 2023, , 2023, 046, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/046

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, , 501, 933, 10.1093/mnras/staa3750

    Parada , J., Heyl , J., Richer , H., Ripoche , P., & Rousseau-Nepton , L. 2021, , 501, 933, 10.1093/mnras/staa3750

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, , 522, 195, 10.1093/mnras/stad965

    ---. 2023, , 522, 195, 10.1093/mnras/stad965

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gallenne , A., et al. 2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Richer , H

    Pritchet , C. J., Richer , H. B., Schade , D., Crabtree , D., & Yee , H. K. C. 1987, , 323, 79, 10.1086/165808

    1987 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Pesce , D

    Reid , M. J., Pesce , D. W., & Riess , A. G. 2019, , 886, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab552d

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Richer , H. B. 1981, , 243, 744, 10.1086/158642

    1981 doi

  39. [47]

    B., Crabtree , D

    Richer , H. B., Crabtree , D. R., & Pritchet , C. J. 1984, , 287, 138, 10.1086/162671

    1984 doi

  40. [48]

    B., Pritchet , C

    Richer , H. B., Pritchet , C. J., & Crabtree , D. R. 1985, , 298, 240, 10.1086/163602

    1985 doi

  41. [49]

    I., Breuval , L., et al

    Riess , A., Anderson , R. I., Breuval , L., et al. 2021, Uncrowding the Cepheids for an Improved Determination of the Hubble Constant , JWST Proposal. Cycle 1, ID. \#1685

    2021

  42. [50]

    2023, Scrutinizing the Dirtiest Cepheids, a Test of the Hubble Tension , JWST Proposal

    ---. 2023, Scrutinizing the Dirtiest Cepheids, a Test of the Hubble Tension , JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. \#2875

    2023

  43. [51]

    G., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    G., Scolnic , D., Anand , G

    Riess , A. G., Scolnic , D., Anand , G. S., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11770, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11770

    2024 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    G., Anand , G

    Riess , A. G., Anand , G. S., Yuan , W., et al. 2024 b , , 962, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2020, , 495, 2858, 10.1093/mnras/staa1346

    Ripoche , P., Heyl , J., Parada , J., & Richer , H. 2020, , 495, 2858, 10.1093/mnras/staa1346

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, , 938, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    Scolnic , D., Brout , D., Carr , A., et al. 2022, , 938, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    G., Wu , J., et al

    Scolnic , D., Riess , A. G., Wu , J., et al. 2023, , 954, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace978

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    2011, ;login: The USENIX Magazine, 36, 42

    Tange, O. 2011, ;login: The USENIX Magazine, 36, 42. http://www.gnu.org/s/parallel

    2011

  51. [59]

    A., Burns , C

    Uddin , S. A., Burns , C. R., Phillips , M. M., et al. 2024, , 970, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e63

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.13305, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.13305

    Verde , L., Sch \"o neberg , N., & Gil-Mar \' n , H. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.13305, 10.48550/arXiv.2311.13305

    2023 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    D., & Nikolaev , S

    Weinberg , M. D., & Nikolaev , S. 2001, , 548, 712, 10.1086/319001

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    R., Dolphin , A

    Weisz , D. R., Dolphin , A. E., Savino , A., et al. 2024, , 271, 47, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad2600

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    G., et al

    Wu , J., Scolnic , D., Riess , A. G., et al. 2023, , 954, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd7b

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    M., He , S., et al

    Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., He , S., et al. 2017, , 154, 149, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa86f1

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    2021, , 916, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac04b2

    Zgirski , B., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Gieren , W., et al. 2021, , 916, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac04b2

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.