pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07441 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

How Robust is the Cosmic Distance with Tip of Red Giant Branch against Stellar Population Variations?

Chul Chung, Dongwook Lim, Hyejeon Cho, Junhyuk Son, Myung Gyoon Lee, Sang-Il Han, Seunghyun Park, Seungsoo Hong, Sohee Jang, Suk-Jin Yoon, Yong -Cheol Kim, Young-Lo Kim, Young-Wook Lee

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords TRGBdistance ladderstellar populationsmetallicityalpha enhancementHubble constantstandard candlecolor-magnitude diagram
0
0 comments X

The pith

The tip of the red giant branch varies by no more than 0.028 magnitudes due to typical differences in stellar age, helium, and alpha enhancement.

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

The paper investigates the robustness of the tip of the red giant branch as a distance indicator by simulating how different stellar population properties affect its luminosity. Using synthetic color-magnitude diagrams, it shows that metallicity and alpha-element enhancement cause the biggest changes in brightness, while age and initial helium abundance have smaller impacts. For mixed populations typical of galactic halos, the combined effect from alpha enhancement, age, and helium stays under 0.028 magnitudes in the I-band. This level of variation falls well inside the systematic errors already accounted for in distance measurements. The findings back the use of TRGB for accurate extragalactic distances and as an independent way to measure the Hubble constant.

Core claim

Using synthetic composite color-magnitude diagrams in the I and F814W bands, the analysis finds that at fixed age and helium, a 0.5 dex increase in metallicity dims M_I^TRGB by 0.046 mag and M_F814W^TRGB by 0.093 mag, while a 0.3 dex increase in alpha-element enhancement dims them by 0.050 and 0.044 mag respectively. Changes in age by 3 Gyr and helium by 0.10 produce smaller average shifts of 0.031 and 0.009 mag in M_I^TRGB. For mixed populations, the net variation from alpha, age, and helium combinations remains below 0.028 mag in M_I^TRGB, confirming the TRGB's reliability as a standard candle.

What carries the argument

Synthetic composite color-magnitude diagrams from stellar evolution models that quantify the luminosity of the tip of the red giant branch under varying population parameters.

If this is right

  • Increasing metallicity by 0.5 dex at fixed age and helium dims the I-band TRGB by 0.046 mag.
  • Increasing alpha-element enhancement by 0.3 dex dims it by 0.050 mag in I-band.
  • Age variations of 3 Gyr cause average shifts of 0.031 mag in M_I^TRGB.
  • Helium abundance variations of 0.10 cause only 0.009 mag shifts.
  • These small net effects in mixed populations keep the TRGB within reported systematic uncertainties for distance measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This robustness implies that TRGB distances can be applied confidently to galaxies with varied star formation histories without major population corrections.
  • Such stability could help cross-check other distance methods in resolving the current tension in Hubble constant values.
  • Direct comparisons of TRGB brightness in galaxies with measured differences in alpha enhancement or metallicity could further validate the modeled effects.

Load-bearing premise

Synthetic composite color-magnitude diagrams from stellar evolution models accurately represent the actual luminosity of TRGB stars across mixed populations in real galaxies.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of TRGB magnitudes in galaxies with known differences in metallicity, alpha enhancement, age, and helium abundance showing variations exceeding 0.028 magnitudes would contradict the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07441 by Chul Chung, Dongwook Lim, Hyejeon Cho, Junhyuk Son, Myung Gyoon Lee, Sang-Il Han, Seunghyun Park, Seungsoo Hong, Sohee Jang, Suk-Jin Yoon, Yong -Cheol Kim, Young-Lo Kim, Young-Wook Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The effect of [Fe/H] and [α/Fe] on the TRGB magnitudes in the Johnson-Cousins I (upper) and HST ACS/WFC F814W (lower) bands. Two sets of theoreti￾cal 12 Gyr isochrones are compared, with the Y 2 -isochrones (left) and the BaSTI isochrones (right). Different colors rep￾resent varying metallicities, while solid and dashed lines cor￾respond to [α/Fe] = 0.3 and 0.0, respectively. For the BaSTI isochrones, the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the TRGB magnitudes from the Y2 , BaSTI, and MIST isochrones in the (V − I)0 versus MI plane. The left and right panels show the α-enhanced and scaled-solar cases, respectively. The adopted α-enhancements are [α/Fe] = 0.3, 0.4, and 0.4 for the Y2 , BaSTI, and MIST isochrones, respectively. The Y2 and BaSTI isochrones are plotted for an age of 12 Gyr, whereas the MIST isochrones are shown for … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of synthetic composite CMDs and corresponding luminosity functions at different mean metallicities. MTRGB I and MTRGB F 814W magnitudes derived from synthetic (V − I)0 versus MI and (F606W − F814W)0 versus MF 814W CMDs with varying metallicity distributions are presented. The other stellar parameters, [α/Fe], age, and Yini, are fixed at 0.3, 12 Gyr, and 0.23, respectively. First and third columns:… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MTRGB I for mixtures of different stellar populations. From top to bottom panels, the combinations include [α/Fe] = 0.0 and 0.3, ages of 9 and 12 Gyr, and stellar populations with Yini = 0.23 and 0.33. The left two columns correspond to ⟨[Fe/H]⟩ = −1.5, while the right two columns correspond to ⟨[Fe/H]⟩ = −1.0. The general trends for stellar population parameters identified in previous simulations remain … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The effect of different stellar population parameters on the MTRGB I . From left to right, the panels show the influence of [α/Fe], age, and Yini, respectively. In each panel, red symbols represent the standard model sets, while blue and purple symbols correspond to comparison models for each parameter. Purple indicates a mixture of the two models with equal fractions. The simulations are based on synthet… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) provides a key standard candle for extragalactic distance measurements and for refining the Hubble constant. We test its robustness by quantifying how metallicity, $\alpha$-element enhancement, age, and initial helium abundance modulate the TRGB luminosity, using synthetic composite color--magnitude diagrams in the $I$ and $F814W$ bands. We find that metallicity and $\alpha$-element enhancement are the primary drivers of TRGB variation, while age introduces only a modest effect and helium abundance is negligible. At fixed age and helium content, increasing the mean metallicity by 0.5 dex or the $\alpha$-element enhancement by 0.3 dex produces the well-known systematic dimming of 0.046 and 0.050 mag, respectively, in $M_I^{\rm TRGB}$, and of 0.093 and 0.044 mag, respectively, in $M_{F814W}^{\rm TRGB}$. By comparison, changes in age of 3~Gyr and in initial helium abundance of 0.10 yield minor luminosity shifts, with average changes of 0.031 and 0.009~mag, respectively, in $M_I^{\rm TRGB}$, and of 0.035 and 0.027 mag, respectively, in $M_{F814W}^{\rm TRGB}$, substantially smaller than those caused by variations in metallicity or $\alpha$-element enhancement. For mixed stellar populations under typical stellar-halo metallicity conditions, the net variation in $M_I^{\rm TRGB}$ arising from each combination of the $\alpha$-element enhancement, age, and initial helium abundance remains below 0.028~mag, well within reported systematic uncertainties. Together, these results reaffirm the TRGB as a highly robust distance indicator and support its continued use as an independent anchor for precision cosmology in the era of the Hubble-tension debate.

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 uses synthetic composite color-magnitude diagrams generated from stellar evolution models to quantify the dependence of TRGB luminosity (in I and F814W) on metallicity, α-element enhancement, age, and initial helium abundance. It reports that metallicity and α-enhancement drive the largest shifts (0.046 mag and 0.050 mag dimming in M_I^TRGB for +0.5 dex and +0.3 dex changes), while 3 Gyr age and 0.10 helium changes produce smaller average shifts (0.031 mag and 0.009 mag). For mixed populations at typical halo metallicities, the net variation from combinations of α, age, and He remains below 0.028 mag, supporting TRGB robustness as a distance indicator.

Significance. If the synthetic CMDs faithfully reproduce real TRGB behavior, the work provides quantitative bounds showing that population variations contribute negligibly to TRGB systematics compared with current uncertainties, reinforcing its value as an independent rung in the distance ladder for Hubble-constant studies. The controlled forward-modeling approach is a clear strength, allowing isolation of individual parameter effects without observational selection biases.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (synthetic CMD construction) and Results (mixed-population section)] The headline result (net |ΔM_I^TRGB| < 0.028 mag for mixed populations) is obtained exclusively from one family of isochrones. Because the TRGB luminosity is fixed by the core mass at helium flash, which depends on the specific treatment of convection, overshooting, diffusion, and mass loss, the small net variation may be an artifact of the chosen grid rather than a general property of stellar populations. This directly affects the central robustness claim and requires explicit comparison with at least one independent set of tracks (e.g., MESA or PARSEC) to test sensitivity to model physics.
  2. [Results (quantitative variation paragraphs)] No quantitative error analysis or uncertainty on the measured tip magnitudes is presented. The quoted shifts (0.046 mag, 0.050 mag, 0.028 mag) are given without reported dispersions from the edge-detection procedure or from finite sampling in the synthetic CMDs, making it impossible to judge whether the “below 0.028 mag” threshold is statistically meaningful or merely an upper limit set by the method.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] Notation for the TRGB magnitude is inconsistent (M_I^TRGB vs. M_I^{rm TRGB}); adopt a single LaTeX form throughout.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that helium abundance is “negligible,” yet reports a 0.027 mag shift in M_F814W^TRGB for ΔY = 0.10; clarify whether this is considered negligible relative to the 0.044–0.093 mag metallicity/α shifts or simply smaller in absolute terms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (synthetic CMD construction) and Results (mixed-population section)] The headline result (net |ΔM_I^TRGB| < 0.028 mag for mixed populations) is obtained exclusively from one family of isochrones. Because the TRGB luminosity is fixed by the core mass at helium flash, which depends on the specific treatment of convection, overshooting, diffusion, and mass loss, the small net variation may be an artifact of the chosen grid rather than a general property of stellar populations. This directly affects the central robustness claim and requires explicit comparison with at least one independent set of tracks (e.g., MESA or PARSEC) to test sensitivity to model physics.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the potential dependence on the specific stellar evolution grid. Our analysis is designed to isolate the effects of population parameters (metallicity, α-enhancement, age, and helium) by varying them within a single, self-consistent set of models, which minimizes confounding differences in input physics. The differential shifts we report arise primarily from changes in the hydrogen-shell burning and core-mass growth along the RGB, which are governed by well-established principles that are common across modern grids. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that an explicit cross-check would strengthen the generality of the <0.028 mag bound. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection discussing the sensitivity of TRGB variations to model physics and will perform a limited comparison using an independent grid (PARSEC) for the key mixed-population cases at halo-like metallicities. This will test whether the net variation remains comparably small. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (quantitative variation paragraphs)] No quantitative error analysis or uncertainty on the measured tip magnitudes is presented. The quoted shifts (0.046 mag, 0.050 mag, 0.028 mag) are given without reported dispersions from the edge-detection procedure or from finite sampling in the synthetic CMDs, making it impossible to judge whether the “below 0.028 mag” threshold is statistically meaningful or merely an upper limit set by the method.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of reported uncertainties on the measured TRGB magnitudes limits the ability to assess the statistical significance of the quoted shifts. In the revised version we will quantify the uncertainties arising from two sources: (1) the edge-detection algorithm itself (by reporting the width of the peak in the Sobel-filter response or equivalent metric) and (2) finite sampling in the synthetic CMDs (via bootstrap resampling of the stellar populations or repeated realizations with different random seeds). These uncertainties will be tabulated alongside the mean shifts, allowing readers to evaluate whether the 0.028 mag threshold for mixed populations is robust relative to the measurement precision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulation from input parameters to measured TRGB shifts

full rationale

The paper generates synthetic CMDs by varying input stellar population parameters (metallicity, alpha enhancement, age, helium) within a fixed set of stellar evolution tracks, then directly measures the TRGB luminosity in the resulting diagrams. This produces the reported net variation bounds (e.g., <0.028 mag) as a straightforward numerical output of those inputs. No step equates a derived quantity to a fitted parameter by construction, renames a known result, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose content reduces to the present work. The derivation chain is self-contained as a parameter-sweep experiment; external validity of the isochrones is a separate modeling assumption, not a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of standard stellar evolution isochrones and the assumption that the tested parameter ranges represent real galaxy halos. No new physical entities are postulated and no parameters are fitted to data; the varied inputs are test values only.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution models accurately predict TRGB luminosity for given metallicity, alpha enhancement, age, and helium values
    Invoked throughout the synthetic CMD construction and luminosity measurements.
  • domain assumption The composite populations with typical halo metallicities are representative of real extragalactic stellar systems
    Used to derive the net variation bound of 0.028 mag.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5716 in / 1346 out tokens · 109724 ms · 2026-05-10T18:15:44.613845+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S., Tully, R

    Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Cohen, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad64c7 2024

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Baumgardt, H., & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1474 2021

  3. [3]

    C., Preston, G

    Beers, T. C., Preston, G. W., & Shectman, S. A. 1985, AJ, 90, 2089, doi: 10.1086/113917

    work page doi:10.1086/113917 1985

  4. [4]

    2008, Mem

    Bellazzini, M. 2008, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 79, 440, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0711.2016

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.0711.2016 2008

  5. [5]

    2004, A&A, 424, 199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035910

    Origlia, L. 2004, A&A, 424, 199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035910 2004

  6. [6]

    B., Evans, N

    Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 642, L137, doi: 10.1086/504797

    work page doi:10.1086/504797 2006

  7. [7]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012

  8. [8]

    Y., Salaris, M., & Pietrinferni, A

    Cassisi, S., Potekhin, A. Y., Salaris, M., & Pietrinferni, A. 2021, A&A, 654, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141425 14 Chung et al

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141425 2021

  9. [9]

    2010, A&A, 522, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014432

    Charbonnel, C., & Lagarde, N. 2010, A&A, 522, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014432

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014432 2010

  10. [10]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  11. [11]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv161

    Chung, C., Lee, Y.-W., & Pasquato, M. 2016, MNRAS, 456, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv161

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slv161 2016

  12. [12]

    Robust and ubiquitous evidence from a larger sample of host galaxies in a broader redshift range

    Chung, C., Park, S., Son, J., Cho, H., & Lee, Y.-W. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 3340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf497

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf497 2025

  13. [13]

    2019, ApJL, 883, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40cf

    Chung, C., Pasquato, M., Lee, S.-Y., et al. 2019, ApJL, 883, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40cf

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab40cf 2019

  14. [14]

    2020, ApJS, 250, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e6

    Chung, C., Yoon, S.-J., Cho, H., Lee, S.-Y., & Lee, Y.-W. 2020, ApJS, 250, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e6 2020

  15. [15]

    2013, ApJS, 204, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/3

    Chung, C., Yoon, S.-J., Lee, S.-Y., & Lee, Y.-W. 2013, ApJS, 204, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/3 2013

  16. [16]

    2011, ApJL, 740, L45, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L45

    Chung, C., Yoon, S.-J., & Lee, Y.-W. 2011, ApJL, 740, L45, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L45

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/l45 2011

  17. [17]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f19

    Chung, C., Yoon, S.-J., & Lee, Y.-W. 2017, ApJ, 842, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f19 2017

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Chung, C., Yoon, S.-J., Park, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0121

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0121 2023

  19. [19]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 166, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17432.x

    Cooper, A. P., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 744, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16740.x Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16740.x 2010

  20. [20]

    K., Strader, J., & Smith, G

    Dupree, A. K., Strader, J., & Smith, G. H. 2011, ApJ, 728, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/155 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117751

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/155 2011

  21. [21]

    Freedman, W. L. 2021, ApJ, 919, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e95

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e95 2021

  22. [22]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hatt, D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73 2019

  23. [23]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Hatt, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7339

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7339 2020

  24. [24]

    2017, A&A, 597, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629034

    Gallet, F., Charbonnel, C., Amard, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629034

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629034 2017

  25. [25]

    L., Freedman, W

    Hatt, D., Beaton, R. L., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f73

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7f73 2017

  26. [26]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  27. [27]

    S., & Lee, M

    Jang, I. S., & Lee, M. G. 2017a, ApJ, 835, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/28

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/28

  28. [28]

    S., & Lee, M

    Jang, I. S., & Lee, M. G. 2017b, ApJ, 836, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/74

  29. [29]

    S., Hoyt, T

    Jang, I. S., Hoyt, T. J., Beaton, R. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc8e9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc8e9 2021

  30. [30]

    V., Bullock, J

    Johnston, K. V., Bullock, J. S., Sharma, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, 936, doi: 10.1086/592228

    work page doi:10.1086/592228 2008

  31. [31]

    ApJS , eprint =

    Kim, Y.-C., Demarque, P., Yi, S. K., & Alexander, D. R. 2002, ApJS, 143, 499, doi: 10.1086/343041

    work page doi:10.1086/343041 2002

  32. [32]

    2012, A&A, 543, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118331

    Lagarde, N., Decressin, T., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118331

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118331 2012

  33. [33]

    G., Freedman, W

    Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, ApJ, 417, 553, doi: 10.1086/173340

    work page doi:10.1086/173340 1993

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Lee, Y.-W., Chung, C., Demarque, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2840

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2840 2022

  35. [35]

    Lee, Y.-W., Chung, C., Kang, Y., & Jee, M. J. 2020, ApJ, 903, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3c6 2020

  36. [36]

    1994, ApJ, 423, 248, doi: 10.1086/173803

    Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., & Zinn, R. 1994, ApJ, 423, 248, doi: 10.1086/173803

    work page doi:10.1086/173803 1994

  37. [37]

    2005, ApJL, 621, L57, doi: 10.1086/428944

    Lee, Y.-W., Joo, S.-J., Han, S.-I., et al. 2005, ApJL, 621, L57, doi: 10.1086/428944

    work page doi:10.1086/428944 2005

  38. [38]

    Li, S., Casertano, S., & Riess, A. G. 2023, ApJ, 950, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accd69

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accd69 2023

  39. [39]

    F., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., & Owens, K. 2023a, AJ, 166, 224, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad022c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad022c

  40. [40]

    F., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., Owens, K. A., & Jang, I. S. 2023b, AJ, 166, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acd3f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acd3f3

  41. [41]

    F., Mager, V., & Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Mager, V., & Freedman, W. L. 2009, ApJ, 690, 389, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/389

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/1/389 2009

  42. [42]

    2006, AJ, 132, 2729, doi: 10.1086/508925

    Makarov, D., Makarova, L., Rizzi, L., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2729, doi: 10.1086/508925

    work page doi:10.1086/508925 2006

  43. [43]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Boyer, M., Skillman, E. D., & Dolphin, A. E. 2019, ApJ, 880, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2627

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2627 2019

  44. [44]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Renzini, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2573

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2573 2018

  45. [45]

    U., & Cacciari, C

    Pasquini, L., Mauas, P., Käufl, H. U., & Cacciari, C. 2011, A&A, 531, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116592

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116592 2011

  46. [46]

    2006, ApJ, 642, 797, doi: 10.1086/501344

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2006, ApJ, 642, 797, doi: 10.1086/501344

    work page doi:10.1086/501344 2006

  47. [47]

    R., Anderson, J., et al

    Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2007, ApJL, 661, L53, doi: 10.1086/518503

    work page doi:10.1086/518503 2007

  48. [48]

    Riess, et al., Astrophys

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  49. [49]

    F., & Freedman, W

    Sakai, S., Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 1996, ApJ, 461, 713, doi: 10.1086/177096

    work page doi:10.1086/177096 1996

  50. [50]

    F., & Freedman, W

    Sakai, S., Madore, B. F., & Freedman, W. L. 1997, ApJ, 480, 589, doi: 10.1086/304000

    work page doi:10.1086/304000 1997

  51. [51]

    1997, MNRAS, 289, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/289.3.406

    Salaris, M., & Cassisi, S. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 406, doi: 10.1093/mnras/289.3.406

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/289.3.406 1997

  52. [52]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace978 2023

  53. [53]

    1978, ApJ, 225, 357, doi: 10.1086/156499

    Searle, L., & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357, doi: 10.1086/156499

    work page doi:10.1086/156499 1978

  54. [54]

    2017, A&A, 606, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731004 Robust TRGB magnitude 15

    Pietrinferni, A. 2017, A&A, 606, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731004 Robust TRGB magnitude 15

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731004 2017

  55. [55]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae8e

    Shao, Z., Wang, S., Jiang, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adae8e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adae8e 2025

  56. [56]

    Alignment with DESI BAO and signs of a non-accelerating universe

    Son, J., Lee, Y.-W., Chung, C., Park, S., & Cho, H. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 975, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1685

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1685 2025

  57. [57]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 1168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1168

    Tanaka, M., Chiba, M., Komiyama, Y., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1168

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1168 2010

  58. [58]

    J., White, S

    Thomas, D., Maraston, C., & Bender, R. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06248.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06248.x 2003

  59. [59]

    Valcarce, A. A. R., Catelan, M., & Sweigart, A. V. 2012, A&A, 547, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219510

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219510 2012

  60. [60]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Valle, G., Dell’Omodarme, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2013, A&A, 549, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220069

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220069 2013

  61. [61]

    B., et al

    Viaux, N., Catelan, M., Stetson, P. B., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322004

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322004 2013

  62. [62]

    H., et al

    Yoon, S.-J., Joo, S.-J., Ree, C. H., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1080, doi: 10.1086/533510

    work page doi:10.1086/533510 2008