Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,986

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM

Open access
Riess, Adam G., Casertano, Stefano, Yuan, Wenlong, Macri, Lucas M., Scolnic, Dan·2019·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We present an improved determination of the Hubble constant from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of 70 long-period Cepheids in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). These were obtained with the same WFC3 photometric system used to measure extragalactic Cepheids in the hosts of SNe Ia. Gyroscopic control of HST was employed to reduce overheads while collecting a large sample of widely separated Cepheids. The Cepheid period–luminosity relation provides a zero-point-independent link with 0.4% precision between the new 1.2% geometric distance to the LMC from detached eclipsing binaries (DEBs) measured by Pietrzyński et al. and the luminosity of SNe Ia. Measurements and analysis of the LMC Cepheids were completed prior to knowledge of the new DEB LMC distance. Combined with a refined calibration of the count-rate linearity of WFC3-IR with 0.1% precision, these three improved elements together reduce the overall uncertainty in the geometric calibration of the Cepheid distance ladder based on the LMC from 2.5% to 1.3%. Using only the LMC DEBs to calibrate the ladder, we find H 0 = 74.22 ± 1.82 km s−1 Mpc−1 including systematic uncertainties, 3% higher than before for this particular anchor. Combining the LMC DEBs, masers in NGC 4258, and Milky Way parallaxes yields our best estimate: H 0 = 74.03 ± 1.42 km s−1 Mpc−1, including systematics, an uncertainty of 1.91%–15% lower than our best previous result. Removing any one of these anchors changes H 0 by less than 0.7%. The difference between H 0 measured locally and the value inferred from Planck CMB and ΛCDM is 6.6 ± 1.5 km s−1 Mpc−1 or 4.4 σ (P = 99.999% for Gaussian errors) in significance, raising the discrepancy beyond a plausible level of chance. We summarize independent tests showing that this discrepancy is not attributable to an error in any one source or measurement, increasing the odds that it results from a cosmological feature beyond ΛCDM.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,986

Metadata

Authors
Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., & Scolnic, D.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2019-05-01
Volume
876
Issue
1
Pages
85
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2921829748
Cited by
1,986
References
3
FWCI
174.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422
The paper
Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., & Scolnic, D. (2019). Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.