Reassessing the constraints from SH0ES extragalactic Cepheid amplitudes on systematic blending bias

10Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The SH0ES collaboration Hubble constant determination is in a ∼5σ difference with the Planck value, known as the Hubble tension. The accuracy of the Hubble constant measured with extragalactic Cepheids depends on robust stellar-crowding background estimation. Riess et al. (R20) compared the light-curve amplitudes of extragalactic and MW Cepheids to constrain an unaccounted systematic blending bias, γ = −0.029 ± 0.037 mag, which cannot explain the required, γ = 0.24 ± 0.05 mag, to resolve the Hubble tension. Further checks by Riess et al. demonstrate that a possible blending is not likely related to the size of the crowding correction. We repeat the R20 analysis, with the following main differences: (1) we limit the extragalactic and MW Cepheids comparison to periods P ≲50 d, since the number of MW Cepheids with longer periods is minimal; (2) we use publicly available data to recalibrate amplitude ratios of MW Cepheids in standard passbands; (3) we remeasure the amplitudes of Cepheids in NGC 5584 and NGC 4258 in two Hubble Space Telescope filters (F555W and F350LP) to improve the empirical constraint on their amplitude ratio A555/A350. We show that the filter transformations introduce an ≈0.04 mag uncertainty in determining γ, not included by R20. While our final estimate, γ = 0.013 ± 0.057 mag, is consistent with the value derived by R20 and is consistent with no bias, the error is somewhat larger, and the best-fitting value is shifted by ≈0.04 mag and closer to zero. Future observations, especially with JWST, would allow better calibration of γ.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sharon, A., Kushnir, D., Yuan, W., Macri, L., & Riess, A. (2024). Reassessing the constraints from SH0ES extragalactic Cepheid amplitudes on systematic blending bias. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528(4), 6861–6880. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae451

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free