A 5% measurement of the Hubble constant from Type II supernovae. (arXiv:2203.08974v2 [astro-ph.CO] UPDATED)

A 5% measurement of the Hubble constant from Type II supernovae. (arXiv:2203.08974v2 [astro-ph.CO] UPDATED)
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Jaeger_T/0/1/0/all/0/1">T. de Jaeger</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Galbany_L/0/1/0/all/0/1">L. Galbany</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Riess_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">A. G. Riess</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Stahl_B/0/1/0/all/0/1">B. E. Stahl</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Shappee_B/0/1/0/all/0/1">B. J. Shappee</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Filippenko_A/0/1/0/all/0/1">A. V. Filippenko</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Zheng_W/0/1/0/all/0/1">W. Zheng</a>

The most stringent local measurement of the Hubble-Lema^itre constant from
Cepheid-calibrated Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) differs from the value inferred
via the cosmic microwave background radiation ({it Planck}$+Lambda$CDM) by
$sim 5sigma$. This so-called “Hubble tension” has been confirmed by other
independent methods, and thus does not appear to be a possible consequence of
systematic errors. Here, we continue upon our prior work of using Type II
supernovae to provide another, largely-independent method to measure the
Hubble-Lema^itre constant. From 13 SNe~II with geometric, Cepheid, or tip of
the red giant branch (TRGB) host-galaxy distance measurements, we derive H$_0=
75.4^{+3.8}_{-3.7}$,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$ (statistical errors only),
consistent with the local measurement but in disagreement by $sim 2.0sigma$
with the {it Planck}$+Lambda$CDM value. Using only Cepheids ($N=7$), we find
H$_0 = 77.6^{+5.2}_{-4.8}$,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$, while using only TRGB
($N=5$), we derive H$_0 = 73.1^{+5.7}_{-5.3}$,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$. Via 13
variants of our dataset, we derive a systematic uncertainty estimate of
1.5,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$. The median value derived from these variants
differs by just 0.3,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$ from that produced by our
fiducial model. Because we only replace SNe~Ia with SNe~II — and we do not
find statistically significant difference between the Cepheid and TRGB H$_0$
measurements — our work reveals no indication that SNe~Ia or Cepheids could be
the sources of the “H$_0$ tension.” We caution, however, that our conclusions
rest upon a modest calibrator sample; as this sample grows in the future, our
results should be verified.

The most stringent local measurement of the Hubble-Lema^itre constant from
Cepheid-calibrated Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) differs from the value inferred
via the cosmic microwave background radiation ({it Planck}$+Lambda$CDM) by
$sim 5sigma$. This so-called “Hubble tension” has been confirmed by other
independent methods, and thus does not appear to be a possible consequence of
systematic errors. Here, we continue upon our prior work of using Type II
supernovae to provide another, largely-independent method to measure the
Hubble-Lema^itre constant. From 13 SNe~II with geometric, Cepheid, or tip of
the red giant branch (TRGB) host-galaxy distance measurements, we derive H$_0=
75.4^{+3.8}_{-3.7}$,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$ (statistical errors only),
consistent with the local measurement but in disagreement by $sim 2.0sigma$
with the {it Planck}$+Lambda$CDM value. Using only Cepheids ($N=7$), we find
H$_0 = 77.6^{+5.2}_{-4.8}$,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$, while using only TRGB
($N=5$), we derive H$_0 = 73.1^{+5.7}_{-5.3}$,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$. Via 13
variants of our dataset, we derive a systematic uncertainty estimate of
1.5,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$. The median value derived from these variants
differs by just 0.3,km,s$^{-1}$,Mpc$^{-1}$ from that produced by our
fiducial model. Because we only replace SNe~Ia with SNe~II — and we do not
find statistically significant difference between the Cepheid and TRGB H$_0$
measurements — our work reveals no indication that SNe~Ia or Cepheids could be
the sources of the “H$_0$ tension.” We caution, however, that our conclusions
rest upon a modest calibrator sample; as this sample grows in the future, our
results should be verified.

http://arxiv.org/icons/sfx.gif