Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 82 references

Expanding Ejecta Method: II. Framework for Cosmological Distance Measurements via Intensity Interferometry

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a ~20 km intensity interferometer can measure supernova angular diameter distances to about 2% at apparent magnitude 12, enough to recalibrate the distance ladder or measure H0 directly at the percent level.

desk verdict Three new EEM-based H0 forecasts built on an imported precision formula and an explicitly optimistic Type Ia extrapolation; worth a careful referee, but the headline numbers should be treated as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08856 v1 pith:I2HIB44T submitted 2025-05-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

David Dunsky , I-Kai Chen , Junwu Huang , Ken Van Tilburg , Robert V. Wagoner This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords expandingejectamethodintensityinterferometryangulardiameterdistanceHubbleconstantcosmicladderTypeIIPsupernovaeIatension
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

The expanding ejecta method aims to make supernovae geometric distance rulers. Instead of relying on brightness or assumed photosphere physics, it compares the physical expansion speed of the ejecta, read from the spectrum, with its angular expansion rate, resolved by a long-baseline intensity interferometer; the ratio is the angular diameter distance. The paper argues that this measurement is precise enough to support three applications: using Type IIP supernovae as geometric anchors to calibrate Cepheids, calibrating Type Ia supernovae directly, and building a Hubble diagram with no distance ladder at all. Under realistic supernova rates, a next-generation array is forecast to measure H0 to 1.6%, 1.1%, and 9.3% (3.6% using Type Ia) for these three applications, with future arrays improving to 1.2%, 0.6%, and 1.5% (0.4%).

What carries the argument

The central object is the square modulus of the visibility function $|V(\lambda,\mathbf{u})|^2$ that an intensity interferometer obtains across many narrow spectral channels; it encodes the angular size, shape, and orientation of the photosphere and ejecta, while the spectrum encodes the line-of-sight velocity structure. The identity $D_A \simeq v_{\mathrm{ej}}/\dot{\theta}_{\mathrm{ej}}$ converts the measured angular expansion rate into a geometric distance. The paper's forecasting machinery is the scaling law of Eq. (3), which ties distance precision to apparent magnitude, observation time, timing resolution, collecting area, spectral resolution, and efficiency, together with the figure of merit $\mathrm{Matchlight}$ that packages those experimental parameters into a single number.

What would settle it

Point a ~20 km baseline intensity interferometer with per-site collecting area $\pi(5\,\mathrm{m})^2$, 10 ps timing, spectral resolution $10^4$, and 50% efficiency at a Type IIP supernova of apparent magnitude about 12 for 60 hours. If the resulting angular diameter distance uncertainty is significantly larger than 2%, or if the recovered distance disagrees with an independent geometric distance to the same supernova's host, the central forecast fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the angular diameter distance to a supernova can be obtained geometrically from $D_A \simeq v_{\mathrm{ej}}/\dot{\theta}_{\mathrm{ej}}$, and that intensity interferometry on baselines around 20 km can resolve the angular expansion rate $\dot{\theta}_{\mathrm{ej}}$ well enough to make this ratio cosmologically useful. The paper adopts the companion paper's forecast that an array with per-site collecting area $\pi(5\,\mathrm{m})^2$, 10 ps timing resolution, spectral resolution $10^4$, and 50% efficiency measures a supernova's angular diameter distance to $\sigma_{D_A}/D_A \approx 2\% \times 10^{0.4(m-12)}\,(t_{\mathrm{obs}}/60\,\mathrm{hr})^{-1/2}$ for a 10%-precision spectral measurement. It then combines this per-supernova precision with realistic populations of Type IIP and Type Ia supernovae to project the Hubble-constant uncertainty for each of the three applications. The Type Ia projections rest on an optimistic assumption that the same fractional precision carries over from hydrogen-rich to thermonuclear ejecta.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast stands or falls on the assumption that a long-baseline intensity interferometer can measure a supernova's angular diameter distance to the 2%-at-magnitude-12 precision quoted from the companion paper, and that Type Ia supernovae achieve the same fractional precision; if either assumption is too optimistic, every Hubble-constant uncertainty in the paper degrades in proportion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A five-year campaign with an array of $\mathrm{Matchlight} \gtrsim 1250$ can calibrate the Cepheid first rung to better than 1%, enough to distinguish the current competing Hubble-constant values at more than $4\sigma$.
  • Directly calibrating Type Ia supernovae with the same array can reach roughly 1% precision in H0 without touching Cepheids or the tip of the red giant branch, and can test the tension at more than $6\sigma$.
  • A fully EEM-based Hubble diagram, using supernovae in the Hubble flow, yields a ladder-free H0 measurement with statistical errors around 9.3% (3.6%) for Type IIP (Type Ia) at $\mathrm{Matchlight}=1250$, improving toward 1.5% (0.4%) for future arrays.
  • Even modest arrays with $\mathrm{Matchlight} \gtrsim 400$–600 can already distinguish the discrepant local and early-universe H0 values at the $2\sigma$–$3\sigma$ level through Cepheid calibration.
  • The magnitude-limited selection bias in EEM distances is estimated at roughly $0.1\sigma_\eta^2$, safely below 1% for Type IIP supernovae in the near-term benchmarks, but it will require correction from population-level asphericity measurements at futuristic $\mathrm{Matchlight}\gtrsim 10^5$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (3) survives real data, the fastest path to a geometric distance anchor is a single bright Type IIP supernova observed over its three-month plateau; one good measurement would already beat the precision of the nearest geometric anchors in the current ladder.
  • The most fragile link in the forecast is the Type Ia extrapolation: the paper assumes equal fractional precision for Type Ia ejecta based on a separate modeling paper. A direct measurement of the visibility signal-to-noise ratio of one nearby Type Ia would settle whether the 3.6%-and-better numbers are plausible.
  • A ladder-free H0 measurement at 1% is ultimately set by cosmic variance and peculiar velocities, not by telescope capability; beyond $\mathrm{Matchlight}\sim10^5$, further gains require better modeling of the local density field rather than larger arrays.
  • If EEM distances work, the same visibility measurements double as morphological maps of supernova ejecta, so the method could constrain explosion geometry independently of its cosmological use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper (Dunsky et al., arXiv:2505.08856) develops a framework for using the expanding ejecta method (EEM) with intensity interferometry to measure angular diameter distances to supernovae, and forecasts the resulting precision on the Hubble constant H0. Three applications are considered: (1) using Type IIP supernovae as geometric anchors to calibrate Cepheids, (2) directly calibrating Type Ia supernova absolute magnitudes, and (3) building a Hubble diagram that is fully independent of the traditional distance ladder. The forecasts are built on Eq. (3), a distance-precision formula imported from the authors' companion paper [1], propagated through Eqs. (5)-(7) with realistic supernova populations, optimal time allocation via Lagrange multipliers, and cosmic-variance systematics. The headline results are H0 precisions of 1.6%, 1.1%, and 9.3% (3.6%) for the three applications with a next-generation interferometer, improving to 1.2%, 0.6%, and 1.5% (0.4%) for a more ambitious array. The authors explicitly state that the Type Ia extension is an optimistic extrapolation of ref. [57]'s modeling, and they quantify a small selection bias in App. I.

Significance. If the input projection in Eq. (3) is correct, this is a genuinely interesting and novel geometric route to H0, offering an avenue that is largely orthogonal to the standard distance ladder and to CMB-based determinations. The paper's contributions include a clean formulation of the propagation from single-supernova distance precision to ladder-rung and Hubble-diagram precision, a detailed Lagrange-multiplier optimization of observing strategy, and a useful treatment of cosmic variance and magnitude-limited selection effects. The appendices contain concrete, reproducible calculations, which is a strength. However, the significance is conditional: every quoted H0 uncertainty scales linearly with the normalization of Eq. (3), and the Type Ia forecasts additionally rest on an explicitly optimistic transfer of Type IIP precision to Type Ia supernovae. The internal error accounting in Eqs. (5)-(7) and the appendices is coherent, but it cannot repair an error in these inputs.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (3)] The central input, Eq. (3), is taken wholesale from the companion paper [1] and is not derived or even summarized here. Since every H0 forecast in Eqs. (5)-(7) and in Figs. 2-3 scales linearly with the normalization of Eq. (3), the manuscript's central claims are conditional on an analysis that is not present in this paper. Please either include a derivation or sufficiently detailed summary of the Fisher analysis behind Eq. (3), or restate prominently that all numerical forecasts are conditional on the companion paper. This is a load-bearing issue: if the 2% normalization or the scalings in σt, A, R, and ε are inaccurate, all quoted precisions change proportionally.
  2. [§2, immediately after Eq. (3)] The assumption that Type Ia supernovae achieve the same fractional distance precision as Type IIP supernovae at fixed apparent magnitude is stated as optimistic, but it is load-bearing for the quoted 1.1% and 3.6% results. At fixed apparent magnitude, a Type Ia is roughly 2.4 mag brighter in absolute terms and therefore about a factor of three more distant than a Type IIP; its angular size is correspondingly smaller and its line-forming regions (Si II/Fe II lines rather than Hα) have different stratification and spectral multiplexing properties. The paper gives no quantitative estimate of how much worse the Type Ia Fisher precision might be. Please provide a quantitative justification based on ref. [57], or present the Type Ia results explicitly as a function of an unknown degradation factor f defined by σ_DA^Ia = f × σ_DA^IIP, and show how the 1.1% and 3.6% forecasts depend on f.
  3. [App. I, Eq. (S1)] The selection bias from magnitude-limited samples, ΔD_A/D_A ≈ 0.1 ση^2, is acknowledged in the text to be potentially sizable for futuristic high-Matchlight arrays, and yet the forecast curves in Fig. 3 extend to Matchlight = 10^5 where the quoted H0 precision is around 0.3%. For Type IIP supernovae with ση ≈ 0.2, the bias is about 0.4%, which is comparable to or larger than the forecast statistical uncertainty in that regime. Please include this bias in the quoted H0 forecasts, or quantify explicitly which points in Fig. 3 are affected and how the proposed population-level correction changes the numbers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (5)-(7) and App. II/IV] The notation in Eqs. (5)-(7) is difficult to parse because of the placement of the summation and division symbols; please rewrite these as explicit fractions, e.g., σ^2 = 1 / [Σ_i 1/(σ_i^2 + σ_cal^2)], to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [App. IV, Eq. (S10)] The factor 'narr' appears in the expression for σ_DA/D_A in Eq. (S10) but is not defined in Eq. (3) or elsewhere in the text; please define it or remove it if it is a placeholder.
  3. [App. IV, Eq. (S13)] The closed-form expression for tobs,i relies on an iterative procedure when some times become negative or exceed t_plateau; it would be helpful to state explicitly that the plotted results are obtained after applying these truncation steps, since the formula alone is not valid in those regimes.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3] The captions refer to 'upper horizontal axes' and 'optimal SN distance' without specifying the redshift or luminosity-distance scale; please add explicit labels and units to the upper axes so the reader can relate the optimal observing strategy to the distance scale.
  5. [App. II, SN population model] The values f_SN,TypeIIP ≈ 0.17 × 0.30 ≈ 5% and f_SN,TypeIa ≈ 79% are quoted without a derivation; please clarify how the factor of 0.30 is obtained and cite the relevant luminosity-function or rate measurements.
  6. [References] Ref. [71] is listed only as 'Galaxies with two or more supernovae'; please provide the full bibliographic information or remove the placeholder.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

H0 forecasts are conditional propagations of Eq. (3), but Eq. (3) itself is a load-bearing self-citation from the authors' companion paper [1], with the Type Ia extension explicitly optimistic.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 'SN distance determination', text immediately after Eq. (2) and before Eq. (4)]
    "In ref. [1], we forecast the precision to which intensity interferometry can determine the parameters of a model ... We project that an intensity interferometer array ... can measure a SN's angular diameter distance to a precision sigma_DA/DA ~ 2% x 10^{0.4(m-12)} (t_obs/60 hr)^{-1/2} ... [Eq. (3)]"

    Eq. (3) is the sole quantitative input to the H0 forecasts: Eqs. (5)-(7) insert sigma_DA/DA(m_i,t_obs,i) into weighted sums, and Figs. 2-3 and the abstract's 1.6%, 1.1%, 9.3% (3.6%) numbers are outputs of those sums. The 2% normalization and scalings are not derived or checked in this paper; they are quoted from the authors' own companion paper [1]. The forecast chain therefore reduces at its base to a self-citation whose Fisher analysis is not reproduced here. This is not a fit-to-H0 circularity and the aggregation/population modeling is independent, but any optimism in the self-cited input scales linearly into every headline H0 uncertainty.

full rationale

The paper's own derivation chain is transparent: Eq. (1) defines the EEM distance estimator, Eq. (3) is imported from the companion paper [1] as a projection, and Eqs. (5)-(7) propagate that projection through Cepheid calibration, direct Ia calibration, and a standalone Hubble diagram. No parameter is fitted to H0 and then renamed a prediction, and no quantity in the paper is defined in terms of the final H0 numbers. Thus the strongest form of circularity (self-definition, fitted-input-called-prediction) is absent. However, the central precision forecast is load-bearing and comes from a same-author citation ([1]); the paper provides no in-manuscript Fisher analysis or external benchmark for the 2% normalization. The Type Ia extension is explicitly flagged as optimistic ('Following recent promising results [57], we (optimistically) assume...'), so it is a caveat rather than a hidden circular step, but it does mean the orange (Ia) projections inherit an unvalidated transfer from IIP physics. On balance, the H0 aggregation work has independent content, so the circularity score is moderate, not severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's forecasts are aggregated from Eq. (3), which is presented as a result of the same authors' companion paper [1]; from an explicitly optimistic Type Ia extrapolation; from an empirical SN population fit; and from standard inputs (sigma_v, sigma_cv). No new physics entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • SN cumulative number function exponent a = 0.505
    Fitted to the number of observed SNe brighter than magnitude m from the International Supernovae Network database over the past 6 years (Supplemental Material, Fig. S1): F(m)=10^{0.505(m-12)} yr^{-1}.
  • Type IIP fraction in magnitude-limited sample = ~5%
    Taken from Li et al. [58]; used to generate realistic SN IIP populations (App. II, text around Eq. S5).
  • Type Ia fraction in magnitude-limited sample = ~79%
    Taken from Li et al. [58]; used to generate realistic SN Ia populations (App. II, text around Eq. S5).
  • Cosmic variance fitting function coefficients = 0.2 and x^{0.110 - [log10 x^{0.6}]^2}
    Analytic fit to numerically computed sigma_cv(R) from the matter power spectrum, Eq. (S9); used in forecasts of total H0 uncertainty in App. III.
  • Asphericity standard deviation sigma_eta = ~20% (Type IIP)
    Used in the selection-bias estimate of App. I, Eq. (S1); taken from spectropolarimetric observations [74].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eq. (3) from companion paper [1] accurately gives the achievable EEM distance precision.
    The entire forecast is a propagation of this Fisher-analysis result, which is not derived or externally benchmarked in this manuscript.
  • ad hoc to paper Type Ia supernovae achieve the same fractional distance precision as Type IIP supernovae at fixed apparent magnitude.
    Stated in the text as '(optimistically) assume' following ref. [57]; no modeling is shown here.
  • domain assumption The observed SN number-count fit F(m)=10^{0.505(m-12)} yr^{-1} describes future magnitude-limited SN samples.
    Fitted to current survey data from the International Supernovae Network; the paper notes a complete sample would follow 10^{0.6m}, so the fit may be incomplete (App. I, Fig. S1).
  • domain assumption The 10%-precision spectral measurement of the flux density required by Eq. (3) is achievable alongside the interferometric observations.
    Stated in the text around Eq. (3); feasibility is not discussed.
  • domain assumption Peculiar velocities have sigma_v ~ 250 km/s and cosmic variance is fully correlated between apparent-magnitude bins in the optimization (rho_ij=1).
    Used in Eq. (7) and App. IV; the fully-correlated assumption is stated explicitly in App. IV and is justified by the narrowness of the optimal magnitude window.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Expanding Ejecta Method: II. Framework for Cosmological Distance Measurements via Intensity Interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2HIB44T

@misc{pith2026250508856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Expanding Ejecta Method: II. Framework for Cosmological Distance Measurements via Intensity Interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2HIB44T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08856}
}
abstract

We explore the potential of the expanding ejecta method (EEM) as a cosmological probe, leveraging its ability to measure angular diameter distances to supernovae (SNe) with intensity interferometry. We propose three distinct applications of the EEM: (1) using Type IIP SNe as moderate-distance geometric anchors to calibrate Cepheids, replacing other local distance indicators; (2) directly calibrating Type Ia SNe, bypassing conventional calibration methods; (3) constructing a fully independent Hubble diagram with Type IIP (Type Ia) SNe, entirely decoupled from the traditional distance ladder. Incorporating realistic SN populations, we forecast a Hubble constant precision with next-generation intensity interferometers of $1.6\%$, $1.1\%$, and $9.3\% \,(3.6\%)$, respectively, for the three different proposed applications. Future intensity interferometry could yield improvements to $1.2\%$, $0.6\%$, and $1.5\%\,(0.4\%)$. The EEM thus offers a powerful geometric alternative for cosmic distance determination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08856 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. EEM illustration. The SN photosphere (yellow) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. EEM-only fractional uncertainties on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I.-K. Chen, D. Dunsky, K. V. Tilburg, J. Huang, and R. V. Wagoner, Expanding ejecta method: I. map- ping supernova morphology with intensity interferometry (2025), arXiv:2504.20132 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [57]

    A. G. Kim, P. E. Nugent, X. Chen, L. Wang, and J. T. O’Brien, Measuring Type Ia Supernova Angular- Diameter Distances with Intensity Interferometry, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.07725 (2025), arXiv:2503.07725 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    , DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys, The Open Journal of As- trophysics 6, 36 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    Dark Energy Survey and Kilo-Degree Survey Collabora- tion et al. , DES Y3 + KiDS-1000: Consistent cosmology combining cosmic shear surveys, The Open Journal of As- trophysics 6, 36 (2023), arXiv:2305.17173 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    O. H. E. Philcox and M. M. Ivanov, BOSS DR12 full- shape cosmology: Λ CDM constraints from the large- scale galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum monopole, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043517 (2022), arXiv:2112.04515 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    , DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12022 (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    DESI Collaboration et al. , DESI 2024 VII: Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.12022 (2024), arXiv:2411.12022 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    , DESI DR2 Results II: Mea- surements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmo- logical Constraints, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14738 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    DESI Collaboration et al. , DESI DR2 Results II: Mea- surements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmo- logical Constraints, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14738 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and D. N. Spergel, Cosmological-parameter determination with mi- crowave background maps, Phys. Rev. D54, 1332 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9512139 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1996

  8. [7]

    Aylor, M

    K. Aylor, M. Joy, L. Knox, M. Millea, S. Raghunathan, and W. L. K. Wu, Sounds Discordant: Classical Distance Ladder & ΛCDM -based Determinations of the Cos- mological Sound Horizon, Astrophys. J. 874, 4 (2019), arXiv:1811.00537 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 82 references
  1. [8]

    B. F. Madore and W. L. Freedman, The Cepheid Dis- tance Scale, PASP 103, 933 (1991)

    1991

  2. [9]

    Rizzi, R

    L. Rizzi, R. B. Tully, D. Makarov, L. Makarova, A. E. Dolphin, S. Sakai, and E. J. Shaya, Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances. II. Zero-Point Calibration, ApJ 661, 815 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701518 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. Macri, B. Buc- ciarelli, M. G. Lattanzi, J. W. MacKenty, J. B. Bow- ers, W. Zheng, A. V. Filippenko, C. Huang, and R. I. Anderson, Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Impli- cations for ...

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with ΛCDM, ApJ 908, L6 (2021), arXiv:201...

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, and D. Scolnic, Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Stan- dards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM, ApJ 876, 85 (2019), arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    D. W. Pesce, J. A. Braatz, M. J. Reid, A. G. Riess, D. Scolnic, J. J. Condon, F. Gao, C. Henkel, C. M. V. Im- pellizzeri, C. Y. Kuo, and K. Y. Lo, The Megamaser Cos- mology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble Constant Con- straints, ApJ 891, L1 (2020), arXiv:2001.09213 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    W. L. Freedman and B. F. Madore, The Hubble Con- stant, ARA&A 48, 673 (2010), arXiv:1004.1856 [astro- ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess, The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 73, 153 (2023), arXiv:2211.04492 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    C. L. Bennett et al. , Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results, ApJS 208, 20 (2013), arXiv:1212.5225 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [17]

    , Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration et al. , Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, A&A 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    , Measurements of the E - mode polarization and temperature-E -mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data, Phys

    SPT-3G Collaboration et al. , Measurements of the E - mode polarization and temperature-E -mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data, Phys. Rev. D 104, 022003 (2021), arXiv:2101.01684 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Aiola et al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 maps and cosmological parameters, J

    S. Aiola et al., The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 maps and cosmological parameters, J. Cosmology As- tropart. Phys. 2020, 047 (2020), arXiv:2007.07288 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Louis et al

    T. Louis et al. , The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Pa- rameters, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14452 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hub- ble and James Webb Space Telescopes, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2408.06153 (2024), arXiv...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, T. G. Brink, A. V. Filippenko, S. Hoffmann, S. W. Jha, W. D’arcy Kenworthy, J. Mackenty, B. E. Stahl, and W. Zheng, A Comprehensive Measurement of the Loca...

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Breuval, A

    L. Breuval, A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, M. Romaniello, Y. S. Murakami, D. Scolnic, G. S. Anand, and I. Soszy´ nski, Small Magellanic Cloud Cepheids Observed with the Hubble Space Telescope Provide a New Anchor for the SH0ES Distance Ladder, 7 ApJ 973, 30 (...

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    B. F. Schutz, Determining the Hubble constant from gravitational wave observations, Nature 323, 310 (1986)

    1986

  18. [25]

    Oguri, Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies, Phys

    M. Oguri, Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083511 (2016), arXiv:1603.02356 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from stan- dard sirens within five years, Nature 562, 545 (2018), arXiv:1712.06531 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Tonry and D

    J. Tonry and D. P. Schneider, A New Technique for Mea- suring Extragalactic Distances, AJ 96, 807 (1988)

    1988

  21. [28]

    C. D. Huang, A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, N. L. Zakamska, S. Casertano, P. A. Whitelock, S. L. Hoff- mann, A. V. Filippenko, and D. Scolnic, Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Mira Variables in the SN Ia Host NGC 1559: An Alternative Candle to Measure the Hubble Cons...

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Refsdal, On the possibility of determining Hubble’s pa- rameter and the masses of galaxies from the gravitational lens effect, MNRAS 128, 307 (1964)

    S. Refsdal, On the possibility of determining Hubble’s pa- rameter and the masses of galaxies from the gravitational lens effect, MNRAS 128, 307 (1964)

    1964

  23. [30]

    Birrer, A

    S. Birrer, A. J. Shajib, A. Galan, M. Millon, T. Treu, A. Agnello, M. Auger, G. C. F. Chen, L. Christensen, T. Collett, F. Courbin, C. D. Fassnacht, L. V. E. Koop- mans, P. J. Marshall, J. W. Park, C. E. Rusu, D. Sluse, C. Spiniello, S. H. Suyu, S. Wagner-Carena, K. C. Wong, M...

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Boone and M

    K. Boone and M. McQuinn, Solar System-scale Interfer- ometry on Fast Radio Bursts Could Measure Cosmic Dis- tances with Subpercent Precision, ApJ 947, L23 (2023), arXiv:2210.07159 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Dalal, M

    N. Dalal, M. Galanis, C. Gammie, S. E. Gralla, and N. Murray, Probing H0 and resolving AGN disks with ultrafast photon counters, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123029 (2024), arXiv:2403.15903 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    R. P. Kirshner and J. Kwan, Distances to extragalactic supernovae., ApJ 193, 27 (1974)

    1974

  27. [34]

    B. P. Schmidt, R. P. Kirshner, and R. G. Eastman, Expanding Photospheres of Type II Supernovae and the Extragalactic Distance Scale, ApJ 395, 366 (1992), arXiv:astro-ph/9204004 [astro-ph]

    1992 arXiv

  28. [35]

    R. P. Kirshner, J. B. Oke, M. V. Penston, and L. Searle, The spectra of supernovae., ApJ 185, 303 (1973)

    1973

  29. [36]

    B. P. Schmidt, R. P. Kirshner, R. G. Eastman, M. M. Phillips, N. B. Suntzeff, M. Hamuy, J. Maza, and R. Aviles, The Distance of Five Type II Supernovae Us- ing the Expanding Photosphere Method and the Value of H 0, ApJ 432, 42 (1994)

    1994

  30. [37]

    R. V. Wagoner, Effects of scattering on continuous ra- diation from supernovae and determination of their dis- tances, ApJ 250, L65 (1981)

    1981

  31. [38]

    R. V. Wagoner and M. Montes, Cosmological distances from supernova photospheres, Phys. Rep. 227, 205 (1993)

    1993

  32. [39]

    S. A. Sim, Spectra of Supernovae During the Photo- spheric Phase, in Handbook of Supernovae , edited by A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin (2017) p. 769

    2017

  33. [40]

    A. V. Filippenko, Optical spectra of supernovae, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 35, 309 (1997)

    1997

  34. [41]

    R. C. Mitchell, B. Didier, S. Ganesh, K. Acharya, R. Khadka, and B. Silwal, Locating Type II-P Super- novae Using the Expanding Photosphere Method. I. Comparing Distances from Different Line Velocities, ApJ 942, 38 (2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    Bartel, M

    N. Bartel, M. F. Bietenholz, M. P. Rupen, and V. V. Dwarkadas, SN 1993J VLBI. 4. A Geometric Deter- mination of the Distance to M81 with the Expanding Shock Front Method, Astrophys. J. 668, 924 (2007), arXiv:0707.0881 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Baron, P

    E. Baron, P. H. Hauschildt, D. Branch, S. Austin, P. Gar- navich, H. B. Ann, R. M. Wagner, A. V. Filippenko, T. Matheson, and J. Liebert, Non-LTE Spectral Analy- sis and Model Constraints on SN 1993J, ApJ 441, 170 (1995)

    1995

  37. [44]

    Baron, P

    E. Baron, P. E. Nugent, D. Branch, and P. H. Hauschildt, Type IIP Supernovae as Cosmological Probes: A Spectral-fitting Expanding Atmosphere Model Distance to SN 1999em, ApJ 616, L91 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0410153 [astro-ph]

    2004

  38. [45]

    Hamuy and P

    M. Hamuy and P. A. Pinto, Type II Supernovae as Stan- dardized Candles, ApJ 566, L63 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0201279 [astro-ph]

    2002

  39. [46]

    Rodr´ ıguez, A

    ´O. Rodr´ ıguez, A. Clocchiatti, and M. Hamuy, Photo- spheric Magnitude Diagrams for Type II Supernovae: A Promising Tool to Compute Distances, AJ 148, 107 (2014), arXiv:1409.3198 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    de Jaeger, S

    T. de Jaeger, S. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, J. P. Anderson, L. Gal- bany, M. Hamuy, M. M. Phillips, M. D. Stritzinger, C. P. Guti´ errez, L. Bolt, C. R. Burns, A. Campillay, S. Castell´ on, C. Contreras, G. Folatelli, W. L. Freedman, E. Y. Hsiao, K. Krisciunas, W. Krzeminski, H. Kun...

    2015 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Sneppen, D

    A. Sneppen, D. Watson, D. Poznanski, O. Just, A. Bauswein, and R. Wojtak, Measuring the Hubble con- stant with kilonovae using the expanding photosphere method, A&A 678, A14 (2023), arXiv:2306.12468 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    C. Vogl, S. Taubenberger, G. Cs¨ ornyei, B. Leibundgut, W. E. Kerzendorf, S. A. Sim, S. Blondin, A. Fl¨ ors, A. Holas, J. V. Shields, J. Spyromilio, S. H. Suyu, and W. Hillebrandt, No rungs attached: A distance- ladder free determination of the Hubble constant through type II ...

    2024

  43. [50]

    R. G. Eastman, B. P. Schmidt, and R. Kirshner, The Atmospheres of Type II Supernovae and the Expanding Photosphere Method, ApJ 466, 911 (1996)

    1996

  44. [51]

    Dessart and D

    L. Dessart and D. J. Hillier, Distance determinations us- ing type II supernovae and the expanding photosphere method, A&A 439, 671 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505465 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Dessart and D

    L. Dessart and D. J. Hillier, Synthetic line and con- tinuum linear-polarization signatures of axisymmetric Type II supernova ejecta, MNRAS 415, 3497 (2011), arXiv:1104.5346 [astro-ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Dessart, D

    L. Dessart, D. J. Hillier, S. Woosley, E. Livne, R. Wald- 8 man, S.-C. Yoon, and N. Langer, Radiative-transfer mod- els for supernovae IIb/Ib/Ic from binary-star progeni- tors, MNRAS 453, 2189 (2015), arXiv:1507.07783 [astro- ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Dessart, D

    L. Dessart, D. J. Hillier, and D. C. Leonard, The evolu- tion of continuum polarization in type II supernovae as a diagnostic of ejecta morphology, A&A 684, A16 (2024), arXiv:2401.07330 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Dravins, T

    D. Dravins, T. Lagadec, and P. D. Nu˜ nez, Long-baseline optical intensity interferometry. Laboratory demonstra- tion of diffraction-limited imaging, A&A 580, A99 (2015), arXiv:1506.05804 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Dai and N

    B. Dai and N. Dalal (2025), in preparation

    2025

  50. [58]

    W. Li, J. Leaman, R. Chornock, A. V. Filippenko, D. Poznanski, M. Ganeshalingam, X. Wang, M. Mod- jaz, S. Jha, R. J. Foley, et al. , Nearby supernova rates from the lick observatory supernova search–ii. the ob- served luminosity functions and fractions of supernovae in a compl...

    2011

  51. [59]

    J. P. Anderson et al. , Characterizing the V-band light- curves of hydrogen-rich type II supernovae, Astrophys. J. 786, 67 (2014), arXiv:1403.7091 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    K. G. Malmquist, On some relations in stellar statistics, Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I 100, 1 (1922)

    1922

  53. [61]

    Gaia mission science performance

  54. [62]

    M. C. Reyes and R. I. Anderson, A 0.9% calibration of the Galactic Cepheid luminosity scale based on Gaia DR3 data of open clusters and Cepheids, Astron. Astrophys. 672, A85 (2023), arXiv:2208.09403 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Vilardell, I

    F. Vilardell, I. Ribas, C. Jordi, E. L. Fitzpatrick, and E. F. Guinan, The distance to the andromeda galaxy from eclipsing binaries, Astronomy & Astrophysics 509, A70 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. Beaton, M. G. Lee, A. Monson, J. Neeley, and J. Rich, Calibration of the Tip of the Red Gi- ant Branch (TRGB) 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7339 (2020), arXiv:2002.01550 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, I. S. Jang, T. J. Hoyt, A. J. Lee, and K. A. Owens, Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measure- ment of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes, (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    A. G. Riess et al. , A 2.4 % Determination of the Lo- cal Value of the Hubble Constant, Astrophys. J. 826, 56 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    D. M. Scolnic et al. (Pan-STARRS1), The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample, Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018), arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Marra, L

    V. Marra, L. Amendola, I. Sawicki, and W. Valken- burg, Cosmic variance and the measurement of the local Hubble parameter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 241305 (2013), arXiv:1303.3121 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Odderskov, S

    I. Odderskov, S. Hannestad, and J. Brandbyge, The variance of the locally measured Hubble parameter explained with different estimators, JCAP 03, 022, arXiv:1701.05391 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. M. Soderberg et al. , An Extremely Luminous X-ray Outburst Marking the Birth of a Normal Supernova, Na- ture 453, 469 (2008), arXiv:0802.1712 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Galaxies with two or more supernovae

  64. [72]

    Van Tilburg, M

    K. Van Tilburg, M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, and N. Weiner, Astrometry with Extended-Path Intensity Correlation, (2023), arXiv:2307.03221 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Galanis, K

    M. Galanis, K. Van Tilburg, M. Baryakhtar, and N. Weiner, Extended-Path Intensity Correlation: Mi- croarcsecond Astrometry with an Arcsecond Field of View, (2023), arXiv:2307.06989 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Wang and J

    L. Wang and J. C. Wheeler, Spectropolarimetry of super- novae., ARA&A 46, 433 (2008), arXiv:0811.1054 [astro- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bishop, Bright supernovae

    D. Bishop, Bright supernovae

  68. [76]

    K. C. Chambers, E. Magnier, N. Metcalfe, H. Flewelling, M. Huber, C. Waters, L. Denneau, P. Draper, D. Far- row, D. Finkbeiner, et al., The pan-starrs1 surveys, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    E. C. Bellm, S. R. Kulkarni, M. J. Graham, R. Dekany, R. M. Smith, R. Riddle, F. J. Masci, G. Helou, T. A. Prince, S. M. Adams, et al. , The zwicky transient fa- cility: system overview, performance, and first results, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 13...

    2018

  70. [78]

    Tonry, L

    J. Tonry, L. Denneau, A. Heinze, B. Stalder, K. Smith, S. Smartt, C. Stubbs, H. Weiland, and A. Rest, Atlas: a high-cadence all-sky survey system, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 130, 064505 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    Chen et al

    P. Chen et al. , The First Data Release of CNIa0.02—A Complete Nearby (Redshift <0.02) Sample of Type Ia Supernova Light Curves*, Astrophys. J. Supp. 259, 53 (2022), arXiv:2011.02461 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Tegmark et al

    M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS), Cosmological Constraints from the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 74, 123507 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608632

    2006 arXiv

  73. [81]

    J. P. Anderson et al. , Optical and near-infrared pho- tometry of 94 type II supernovae from the Carnegie Su- pernova Project, Astron. Astrophys. 692, A95 (2024), arXiv:2410.06738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    P. A. Pinto and R. G. Eastman, The Physics of Type IA Supernova Light Curves. I. Analytic Results and Time Dependence, ApJ 530, 744 (2000). 1 Supplemental Material David Dunsky, I-Kai Chen, Junwu Huang, Ken Van Tilburg, Robert V. Wagoner This Supplemental Material contains sup...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.