Measurement of the Hubble constant with high-energy neutrinos

Carlos A. Arg\"uelles; Gonzalo Herrera; Nicholas Kamp

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Measurement of the Hubble constant with high-energy neutrinos

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper reports the first measurement of the Hubble constant with high-energy neutrinos: $H_0 = 49^{+40}_{-30}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, from twelve Seyfert galaxies via the disk-corona scaling $L_\nu=\kappa L_X^\beta$ anchored…

desk verdict A genuinely new neutrino distance-ladder method with a solid beta measurement, but the headline H0 is hostage to one Compton-thick anchor and a single X-ray luminosity choice—needs major revision before the central value can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00923 v1 pith:3TBG7YAH submitted 2026-08-02 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEhep-exhep-ph

Gonzalo Herrera , Nicholas Kamp , Carlos A. Argüelles This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-exhep-ph

keywords HubbleconstantneutrinodistanceladderSeyfertgalaxiesdisk-coronacorrelationstandardizablecandleshigh-energyneutrinoscosmictension

topics The Hubble Tension

open problems The Hubble Tension

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

High-energy neutrinos cross the Universe without dust extinction, scattering, or absorption, so a distance measured with them would carry none of the propagation systematics that affect every photon-based rung of the cosmic distance ladder. The paper claims to have built the first neutrino distance ladder and used it to measure the Hubble constant. It takes twelve X-ray-selected Seyfert galaxies with per-source neutrino excesses, assumes the disk-corona correlation $L_\nu = \kappa L_X^\beta$ between neutrino and X-ray luminosity, calibrates the relation with the Cepheid-plus-TRGB distance to NGC 1068, and reports $H_0 = 49^{+40}_{-30}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ with slope $\beta = 0.67^{+0.16}_{-0.25}$. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first distance measurement whose error budget lives entirely in source physics rather than photon propagation, offering a systematics-independent way to confront the Hubble tension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the disk-corona power-law correlation $L_\nu = \kappa L_X^\beta$ between the neutrino luminosity in the TeV–PeV band and the intrinsic 20–50 keV X-ray luminosity. Its slope $\beta$ encodes the coronal physics: $\beta=1$ is the calorimetric limit, $\beta>1$ signals thin-target $p\gamma$ production, and $\beta<1$ can arise from synchrotron or Bethe–Heitler losses that suppress neutrino production in brighter coronae. The same relation, combined with the inverse-square law, produces the distance lever arm $F_\nu \propto F_X^\beta d_L^{2(\beta-1)}$, which vanishes at $\beta=1$; a single geometrically measured distance to NGC 1068 (Cepheid plus tip-of-the-red-giant-branch envelope, $10.93\pm0.74$ Mpc) fixes the normalization and breaks the degeneracy between $\kappa$ and $H_0$.

What would settle it

Measure the intrinsic 2–10 keV X-ray luminosity of the anchor galaxy's Compton-thick nucleus with a correction scheme independent of the baseline catalog; if it comes out near $4\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ rather than the roughly $2\times10^{42}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ adopted in the primary analysis, the paper's own cross-check predicts $H_0$ shifts from about 49 to about $109\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, outside the quoted credible interval.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relation $L_\nu = \kappa L_X^\beta$, tying a Seyfert galaxy's neutrino luminosity to its intrinsic 20–50 keV X-ray luminosity, turns individually detected neutrino sources into standardizable candles. Because the observed neutrino flux then scales as $F_\nu \propto F_X^\beta d_L^{2(\beta-1)}$, any slope $\beta\neq 1$ makes the neutrino flux carry distance information: comparing twelve sources at different redshifts constrains $H_0$ once a non-redshift distance fixes the absolute scale. The joint posterior over ($H_0$, $\beta$, $d_{\mathrm{NGC\,1068}}$) yields $H_0 = 49^{+40}_{-30}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ and $\beta = 0.67^{+0.16}_{-0.25}$, with the calorimetric value $\beta = 1$ excluded at about $2\sigma$. The result is consistent with both the CMB value and the Cepheid-supernova value at $1\sigma$, so it does not yet adjudicate the Hubble tension, but it demonstrates that a neutrino-only rung of the distance ladder is observationally viable.

Load-bearing premise

The whole distance scale hangs on one number: the model-dependent intrinsic X-ray luminosity of the Compton-thick anchor galaxy, whose published values span about $6\times10^{41}$ to $7\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and which alone can move $H_0$ from about 49 to about $109\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The neutrino ladder yields an $H_0$ measurement that is free of electromagnetic propagation systematics by construction; the remaining uncertainties sit in the $L_\nu$–$L_X$ source relation and in the local anchor.
The sub-linear slope $\beta = 0.67^{+0.16}_{-0.25}$ is a physics result in its own right: it disfavors the calorimetric limit at about $2\sigma$ and points to coronae in which neutrino production becomes less efficient as X-ray luminosity rises.
At current precision the result cannot weigh in on the Hubble tension, sitting within $1\sigma$ of both the CMB value and the Cepheid-supernova value; its present value is demonstrative rather than decisive.
Projected to a next-generation neutrino observatory with roughly 50 Seyfert sources and about 10 geometric anchors, the same analysis would reach $\sigma(H_0)\approx 20\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ (about $16$ with external X-ray priors), according to the paper's Fisher forecast.
The method requires $\beta\neq 1$: at exactly $\beta=1$ the distance dependence cancels and the data carry no information about $H_0$.

Reading between the lines

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

If future hard X-ray observations pin down the intrinsic luminosity of the Compton-thick anchor NGC 1068, the same pipeline makes a sharp prediction: a luminosity near $4\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ would move $H_0$ from about 49 to about $109\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, while the low value adopted in the baseline keeps it near 49.
The framework points toward a multi-population neutrino cosmography: any source class with a known luminosity correlation and its own geometric anchors, such as blazars with $p\gamma$ slopes near $\beta\approx1.8$, could add an independent second rung; the paper's own forecast shows such a population helps only if it brings anchors.
A testable extension is to repeat the inference with publicly released per-source profile likelihoods for the full roughly 61-source catalog, since the paper notes that selecting on neutrino significance can imprint an apparent $L_\nu$–$L_X$ correlation and the larger sample would quantify rather than merely mitigate that bias.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The first thing you should know: this paper really does something new. It builds a distance-ladder rung out of the Lnu–LX correlation in Seyferts and extracts per-source neutrino counts from public IceCube data. That is reproducible, transparent work, and the population-level beta = 0.67 measurement is a real result, stable across priors and anchor choices. The H0 number, though, is not robust. The paper's own supplemental shows that adding NGC 4151 as a second anchor moves H0 from 49 to 109 km/s/Mpc, and that changing the adopted intrinsic X-ray luminosity of NGC 1068 from ~2e42 to 4e43 erg/s does the same. That is not a small systematic tail; it is a factor-of-two swing driven by the single anchor the whole calibration rests on. Given those numbers, the quoted 68% interval for H0 understates the uncertainty by a wide margin. I would not describe the paper as circular—the anchors and X-ray fluxes are external, and kappa is profiled rather than assumed—but the single-anchor dependence is effectively a calibration uncertainty that the posterior does not include.

What is actually solid: the SkyLLH re-extraction is validated against the public TS catalog and matches to within 1.5 sigma; the likelihood derivation is clean; the peculiar-velocity corrections are done carefully; and the beta result is interesting on its own, with sub-calorimetric scaling apparently preferred at ~2 sigma. The IceCube-Gen2 Fisher projections are reasonable and clearly labeled as forecasts. The authors also deserve credit for putting the anchor-sensitivity and X-ray-luminosity dependence in the supplement rather than burying it.

The soft spots are exactly where the reader and stress-test notes point. The anchor inconsistency is an internal consistency check that fails on the paper's own data: two sources with published distances imply inconsistent effective Hubble parameters under the fitted Lnu–LX model, and the paper attributes this to intrinsic scatter—but then a single-source calibration of kappa is biased, not just uncertain. The selection on neutrino significance is a real concern, acknowledged but not fully mitigated. The X-ray luminosity of a Compton-thick anchor is a model inference, not a measurement, and the headline H0 track the low end of the published range. These are not manufactured flaws; they are the paper's own tables.

The audience is the AGN-neutrino and cosmology communities. The method paper and the beta measurement deserve serious peer review; the H0 central value does not yet deserve to be quoted as a measurement. I would send this to referee with a clear request: reframe the H0 result as a demonstration with uncontrolled calibration systematics, or fold the anchor and X-ray luminosity variations into the reported uncertainty. Either way, the paper is worth engaging with—just not as a finished H0 determination.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new distance-ladder method to measure the Hubble constant using high-energy neutrinos from Seyfert galaxies, exploiting the disk-corona correlation L_nu = kappa L_X^beta between neutrino and X-ray luminosities. Using 12 X-ray-selected Seyferts with per-source neutrino excesses in the IceCube 14-year public point-source data, and anchoring the correlation with the Cepheid-plus-TRGB distance to NGC 1068, the authors report H0 = 49+40-30 km/s/Mpc and beta = 0.67+0.16-0.25. They also present IceCube-Gen2 forecasts and a detailed supplemental deriving the likelihood, validating their SkyLLH implementation, and exploring many systematic variations.

Significance. If the reported H0 measurement were robust, this would introduce a genuinely new messenger for cosmological distance measurement and constitute the first neutrino-based rung of the cosmic distance ladder. The authors deserve explicit credit for a transparent analysis: they use public IceCube data, document their likelihood construction carefully, validate their signal-count extraction against published IceCube test statistics, and perform unusually extensive sensitivity tests. However, the central H0 claim is not currently defensible. The paper's own sensitivity tests show that adding a second anchor or adopting a plausible alternative X-ray luminosity for the anchor changes H0 from about 49 to about 109 km/s/Mpc, far outside the quoted 68% credible interval. The beta measurement is more stable across these configurations and may survive as a useful population-level result, but the headline H0 result is not supported by the internal consistency of the data.

major comments (3)

[Supp. Sec. XI, Table SIII and Fig. S3] Adding NGC 4151 as a second geometric anchor, using the same likelihood, priors, and data, shifts the H0 posterior from 49+40-30 to 109+28-37 km/s/Mpc, a factor-of-two change far outside the quoted 68% interval. The paper attributes this shift to intrinsic scatter in the L_nu-L_X relation; if that attribution is correct, a single-anchor calibration is biased because NGC 1068 is not representative of the population, and if it is not correct, the joint fit cannot accommodate the two anchors simultaneously. Either way, the reported H0 credible interval excludes a systematic that the paper itself demonstrates, so the headline measurement is not internally consistent.
[Supp. Sec. XV] Section XV states that H0 is controlled almost entirely by the adopted intrinsic 2-10 keV luminosity of the Compton-thick anchor NGC 1068, whose published values span 6e41 to 7e43 erg/s. Adopting the higher value 4e43 erg/s moves H0 to 109+29-37 km/s/Mpc, while the baseline analysis uses the low end of the range (about 2e42 erg/s). Because the anchor's X-ray luminosity is a model inference rather than a direct measurement, the quoted statistical interval does not contain the dominant systematic; the H0 result is therefore not a robust measurement at the claimed precision.
[Main text, Eq. (2) and Sec. V (Data)] The 25% X-ray flux uncertainty is assumed to absorb intrinsic scatter in the L_nu-L_X relation, but the two-anchor tension in Table SIII indicates an inconsistency larger than this assumed uncertainty would allow. Since the flux uncertainty and intrinsic scatter enter the likelihood in exactly the same multiplicative form, they are perfectly degenerate, and the data cannot justify treating 25% as a known error rather than as an unknown systematic variance. The analysis should either model the scatter explicitly with a free parameter or conclude that H0 is currently unconstrained by this method.

minor comments (4)

[Main text, Acknowledgements] The word 'Acknoledgements' is a typo and should read 'Acknowledgements'.
[Abstract and Discussion] The statement that the method is 'free of electromagnetic propagation systematics' is too strong: the anchor calibration relies on Cepheid/TRGB photometry and on a model-dependent intrinsic X-ray luminosity, which are electromagnetic measurements subject to their own systematics.
[Supp. Table SV] NGC 3079, LEDA 166445, and Mrk 1498 have best-fit neutrino spectral indices at the upper boundary gamma_nu = 4.0 of the scan grid; the authors should comment on whether this boundary affects the extracted signal counts and their uncertainties.
[Title] The title announces a 'Measurement of the Hubble constant' whereas the reported value is sensitive to the anchor choice and to the adopted anchor X-ray luminosity; a more cautious title such as 'A neutrino-based distance ladder: constraints on H0 and the L_nu-L_X slope' would better match the content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the neutrino H0 measurement is anchored to external distances and public IceCube data, with H0 never appearing as an input.

full rationale

The claimed H0 measurement is not equivalent to any input by construction. The likelihood (Eq. 2 / Eq. S30) compares SkyLLH-extracted neutrino signal counts with the disk-corona prediction Lnu = kappa LX^beta; the X-ray fluxes come from BASS, the neutrino counts are re-extracted from IceCube's public 14-year point-source release, and the only calibrator is the external Cepheid+TRGB distance to NGC 1068 (10.93 +/- 0.74 Mpc). H0 enters only as the Hubble-flow distance parameter d_L(z,H0); no equation defines H0 in terms of itself, nor defines the anchor distance in terms of H0. The kappa-H0 degeneracy is explicitly identified in Eq. S4 and broken by the anchor in Eq. S5, which is the intended ladder structure rather than a circular reduction. The dependence of the H0 lever arm on the fitted slope beta is model structure, not definitional circularity: beta and H0 are jointly inferred from the same likelihood, but neither is an input to the other's definition. The paper's own sensitivity tests show large systematics—the H0 posterior moves to ~109 when NGC 4151 is added as a second anchor (Supp. Sec. XI) and is controlled almost entirely by the adopted intrinsic X-ray luminosity of the Compton-thick anchor NGC 1068 (Supp. Sec. XV). These are serious systematic and correctness concerns, but they are not cases of a 'prediction' reducing by construction to its inputs: the shifted results are still derived from external distances, external fluxes, and public IceCube counts. Citations to IceCube collaboration papers are citations to public data releases and standard analysis tools; the distance anchors are external; and no load-bearing argument rests on an unverified self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

The central inference depends on the assumed disk-corona relation, the external anchor luminosity and distance, the count-noise model, and several hand-chosen uncertainties. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the fitted slope beta, the profiled normalization kappa, the per-source spectral indices, and the adopted noise terms.

free parameters (5)

beta = 0.67 (68% CI +0.16 -0.25)
Slope of the Lnu-LX correlation fitted jointly with H0; central to the distance lever arm.
kappa = profiled, not quoted
Overall normalization of the Lnu-LX relation, eliminated by iterative weighted least squares; absorbs bolometric-to-band conversions.
sigma_v = 250 km/s
Residual peculiar-velocity uncertainty assigned to Hubble-flow sources without direct distance measurements.
sigma_FX/FX = 0.25 (25%)
Uniform fractional X-ray flux uncertainty; also absorbs intrinsic scatter of the Lnu-LX relation and is not independently constrained.
gamma_nu,i (per-source neutrino spectral indices) = See Table SV, e.g., 3.24 for NGC 1068
Neutrino spectral indices fitted in SkyLLH scans; enter the detector response factor C_i.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The disk-corona relation Lnu = kappa L_X^beta holds across the Seyfert population with a single beta and kappa and no unmodeled scatter beyond the 25% X-ray uncertainty.
Eq. (1) and Supp. Sec. I; if sources have heterogeneous beta or larger intrinsic scatter, the H0 and beta inferences are biased.
domain assumption Flat LambdaCDM with Omega_m = 0.315 for luminosity distances.
Eq. (S13); standard cosmology input from prior literature.
standard math Per-source signal-count uncertainties are Gaussian with widths from Wilks profile-likelihood contours.
Supp. Sec. IV; asymptotic approximation, reasonable for the count levels involved.
domain assumption The k-correction K_i = 1 for the primary analysis, with the residual bounded by a sensitivity run.
Supp. Sec. III; the induced H0 shift is below 2 km/s/Mpc.
domain assumption Selecting the 12 highest-significance sources does not seriously bias the inferred Lnu-LX correlation after the adopted likelihood treatment.
Main text data section and Supp. Sec. V A; the paper itself states the bias is mitigated but not eliminated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the Hubble constant with high-energy neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TBG7YAH

@misc{pith2026260800923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the Hubble constant with high-energy neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TBG7YAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00923}
}

abstract

Measuring distances in the Universe is one of the hardest problems in physics and astronomy. Almost every distance probe relies on photons, whose propagation across cosmic distances introduces extinction, absorption, scattering, and radiative-transfer effects. Neutrinos suffer none of these and propagate unattenuated through dust, intergalactic medium, and dense source environments alike. We introduce a new distance-ladder method for measuring the Hubble constant $H_0$ using high-energy astrophysical neutrinos from point sources as standardizable candles, and report its first observational realization. Using 12 X-ray-selected Seyfert galaxies for which IceCube reports significant per-source neutrino excesses in its 14-year public point-source release, we exploit the disk-corona correlation $L_\nu = \kappa\, L_X^\beta$ between neutrino and X-ray luminosities to construct a neutrino distance ladder anchored by non-redshift distances to NGC 1068 (Cepheid + TRGB). We find $H_0 = 49^{+40}_{-30}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ and $\beta = 0.67^{+0.16}_{-0.25}$ (68% credible intervals), with the corona slope disfavoring the calorimetric limit $\beta = 1$ at ${\sim}2\sigma$. The result is consistent with existing $H_0$ determinations from Planck and SH0ES within 1$\sigma$. While the uncertainty on $H_0$ is large, the measurement is free of electromagnetic propagation systematics and demonstrates the viability of neutrinos as a novel cosmographical probe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00923 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

arXiv 2020
[3]

Birreret al.(TDCOSMO), Astron

S. Birreret al.(TDCOSMO), Astron. Astrophys.643, A165 (2020), arXiv:2007.02941

arXiv 2020
[4]

LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03604

arXiv 2023
[5]

IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration, J. Phys. G48, 060501 (2021), arXiv:2008.04323

arXiv 2021
[6]

See Supplemental Material for source catalog, likelihood details, prior justifications, MCMC diagnostics, and the neutrino Hubble diagram

work page
[10]

F. W. Stecker, Phys. Rev. D72, 107301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0510537

arXiv 2005
[11]

Cygnus A 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 H0 [km s−1 Mpc−1] 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012Posterior density H0 = 49+40 −30 Planck (67.4) SH0ES (73.0) FIG. 2.Left:L ν–LX relation for the eleven Hubble-flow Seyferts (blue circles) and the single non-redshift-distance calibrator NGC 1068 (gold star, Cepheid+TRGB envelope), evaluated at the posterior medianH...

work page
[16]

Waxman and J

E. Waxman and J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2292 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9701231

arXiv 1997

Show all 48 references

[17]

Inoue, D

Y. Inoue, D. Khangulyan, and A. Doi, Astrophys. J. Lett. 880, L40 (2019), arXiv:1904.00554

2019 arXiv
[24]

Luo, M.-X

J.-J. Luo, M.-X. Lu, and Y.-F. Liang, arXiv:2605.13588 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[27]

Eichler, Astrophys

D. Eichler, Astrophys. J.232, 106 (1979), DOI:10.1086/157269. 6 Supplemental Material: Measurement of the Hubble constant with high-energy neutrinos This Supplemental Material accompanies the Letter and provides a self-contained description of the analysis. We begin with the d...

1979 doi
[28]

Murase, S

K. Murase, S. S. Kimura, and P. M´ esz´ aros, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 011101 (2020), arXiv:1904.04226

2020 arXiv
[29]

Murase, Astrophys

K. Murase, Astrophys. J. Lett.941, L17 (2022), arXiv:2211.04460

2022 arXiv
[30]

Kheirandish, K

A. Kheirandish, K. Murase, and S. S. Kimura, Astrophys. J.922, 45 (2021), arXiv:2102.04475

2021 arXiv
[31]

Karavola, M

D. Karavola, M. Petropoulou, D. F. G. Fiorillo, L. Comisso, and L. Sironi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04(2025) 075, arXiv:2410.12638

2025 arXiv
[32]

Murase, D

K. Murase, D. Guetta, and M. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071101 (2016), arXiv:1509.00805

2016 arXiv
[33]

Murase and F

K. Murase and F. W. Stecker, World Scientific Series in Astrophysics: The Encyclopedia of Cosmology, pp.483- 540 (2023), arXiv:2202.03381

2023 arXiv
[34]

D. F. G. Fiorillo, L. Comisso, E. Peretti, M. Petropoulou, L. Sironi Astrophys. J. 989 2, 215 (2025) arXiv:2504.06336

2025
[35]

Blanco, D

C. Blanco, D. Hooper, T. Linden, E. Pinetti Phys. Rev. D 113 (2026) arXiv:2509.15421

2026
[36]

IceCube Collaboration, arXiv:2510.13403 (2025)

2025
[37]

M. J. Kosset al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.261, 2 (2022), arXiv:2207.12432

2022 arXiv
[38]

W. H. Baumgartneret al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.207, 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.3336

2013 arXiv
[39]

IceCube Collaboration, arXiv:2602.10208 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[40]

IceCube Collaboration, arXiv:2406.06684 (2024)

2024
[41]

Bellenghi, M

C. Bellenghi, M. Karl, and M. Wolf, Proc. Sci. (ICRC2023) 1108, arXiv:2308.12733 (2023); github.com/icecube/skyllh

2023 arXiv
[42]

IceCube Collaboration, Science378, 538 (2022), arXiv:2211.09972

2022
[43]

Markham, M

M. Markham, M. C. Bentz, L. Ferrarese, C. A. Onken, and M. Vestergaard, arXiv:2602.22407 (2026)

2026
[44]

C. Y. Kuoet al., Astrophys. J.727, 20 (2011), arXiv:1008.2146

2011 arXiv
[45]

N. A. Tikhonov and O. A. Galazutdinova, Astrophys. Bull.76, 255 (2021), DOI:10.1134/S199034132103010X

2021 doi
[46]

Yuanet al., Astrophys

W. Yuanet al., Astrophys. J.902, 26 (2020), arXiv:2007.07888

2020 arXiv
[47]

Koshidaet al., Astrophys

S. Koshidaet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.842, L13 (2017), arXiv:1705.09757

2017 arXiv
[48]

A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510

2022 arXiv
[49]

F. W. Stecker, C. Done, M. H. Salamon, and P. Sommers, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 2697 (1991), DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2697

1991 doi
[50]

IceCube Collaboration, Science361, eaat1378 (2018), arXiv:1807.08816

2018 arXiv
[51]

Ricciet al., Astrophys

C. Ricciet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.233, 17 (2017), arXiv:1709.03989

2017 arXiv
[52]

Marchesiet al., Astrophys

S. Marchesiet al., Astrophys. J.854, 49 (2018), arXiv:1801.03166

2018 arXiv
[53]

Rodiet al., Astron

J. Rodiet al., Astron. Astrophys.710, A144 (2026), DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/202557844

2026 doi
[54]

F. E. Baueret al., Astrophys. J.812, 116 (2015), arXiv:1411.0670

2015 arXiv
[55]

Zainoet al., Mon

A. Zainoet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.492, 3872 (2020), arXiv:2001.05499

2020
[56]

Marinucciet al., Mon

A. Marinucciet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.456, L94 (2016), arXiv:1511.03503

2016 arXiv
[57]

Ogawaet al., Astrophys

S. Ogawaet al., Astrophys. J.875, 115 (2019), arXiv:1903.11606

2019 arXiv
[58]

Tanimotoet al., Astrophys

A. Tanimotoet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.260, 30 (2022), arXiv:2203.13266

2022 arXiv
[59]

C. S. Reynoldset al., Astrophys. J.808, 154 (2015), arXiv:1506.07175

2015 arXiv
[60]

Zhaoet al., Astron

X. Zhaoet al., Astron. Astrophys.650, A57 (2021), arXiv:2011.03851

2021 arXiv
[61]

Kosset al., Astrophys

M. Kosset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.824, L4 (2016), arXiv:1708.06762

2016 arXiv
[62]

Carrick, S

J. Carrick, S. J. Turnbull, G. Lavaux, and M. J. Hud- son, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450, 317 (2015), arXiv:1504.04627

2015 arXiv
[63]

A. Carr, T. M. Davis, D. Scolnicet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust.39, e046 (2022), arXiv:2112.01471

2022 arXiv
[64]

Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205

Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys.641, A1 (2020), arXiv:1807.06205

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

Planck Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

arXiv 2020

[2] [3]

Birreret al.(TDCOSMO), Astron

S. Birreret al.(TDCOSMO), Astron. Astrophys.643, A165 (2020), arXiv:2007.02941

arXiv 2020

[3] [4]

LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03604

arXiv 2023

[4] [5]

IceCube-Gen2 Collaboration, J. Phys. G48, 060501 (2021), arXiv:2008.04323

arXiv 2021

[5] [6]

See Supplemental Material for source catalog, likelihood details, prior justifications, MCMC diagnostics, and the neutrino Hubble diagram

work page

[6] [10]

F. W. Stecker, Phys. Rev. D72, 107301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0510537

arXiv 2005

[7] [11]

Cygnus A 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 H0 [km s−1 Mpc−1] 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012Posterior density H0 = 49+40 −30 Planck (67.4) SH0ES (73.0) FIG. 2.Left:L ν–LX relation for the eleven Hubble-flow Seyferts (blue circles) and the single non-redshift-distance calibrator NGC 1068 (gold star, Cepheid+TRGB envelope), evaluated at the posterior medianH...

work page

[8] [16]

Waxman and J

E. Waxman and J. N. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2292 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9701231

arXiv 1997