Robustness of <i>H</i>0 determination at intermediate redshifts

Holanda, R. F. L.; Busti, V. C.; Silva, G. Pordeus da

doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu086

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The former is smaller than the values from other observations, whereas the latter agrees very well with the value directly reconstructed from the H(z) data [27]. Thus, different galaxy cluster samples give different values of h. This result is the same as that obtained in [36] on the basis of a ΛCDM model with a combination of galaxy clusters and other observations. If the ADD data from BAO measurements are considered, we obtain h = 0.6683 ± 0.0221 at the 1σ CL, which is larger than the values from SNIa + galaxy clusters.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…It is easy to see that different galaxy cluster samples give different h constraints. This finding is the same as that obtained in [36] on the basis of a ΛCDM model in which galaxy cluster samples were combined with other data. However, our values for the Hubble constant are much less than those given in [36].…”

Section: B Galaxy Cluster Sample + Union 21 Sniasupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This value is consistent with the result obtained in [2]. Later, Holanda et al [36] considered the effects of different galaxy cluster samples and found that different samples give different results, i.e., H 0 = 70±4 km s −1 Mpc −1 if the spherical β model galaxy cluster sample [28] is replaced by the elliptical one [37]. Therefore, not only local and global measurements but also different intermediate-redshift data may yield controversial results for the value of the Hubble constant.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determining H 0 using a model-independent method

2016

Front. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By using type Ia supernovae (SNIa) to provide the luminosity distance (LD) directly, which depends on the value of the Hubble constant H 0 = 100h km s −1 Mpc −1 , and the angular diameter distance from galaxy clusters or baryon acoustic oscillations (BAOs) to give the derived LD according to the distance duality relation, we propose a model-independent method to determine h from the fact that different observations should give the same LD at a given redshift. Combining the Sloan Digital Sky Survey II (SDSS-II) SNIa from the MLCS2k2 light curve fit and galaxy cluster data, we find that at the 1σ confidence level (CL), h = 0.5867 ± 0.0303 for the sample of the elliptical β model for galaxy clusters, and h = 0.6199 ± 0.0293 for that of the spherical β model. The former is smaller than the values from other observations, whereas the latter is consistent with the Planck result at the 2σ CL and agrees very well with the value reconstructed directly from the H(z) data. With the SDSS-II SNIa and BAO measurements, a tighter constraint, h = 0.6683 ± 0.0221, is obtained. For comparison, we also consider the Union 2.1 SNIa from the SALT2 light curve fitting. The results from the Union 2.1 SNIa are slightly larger than those from the SDSS-II SNIa, and the Union 2.1 SNIa + BAOs give the tightest value. We find that the values from SNIa + BAOs are quite consistent with those from the Planck and the BAOs, as well as the local measurement from Cepheids and very-low-redshift SNIa.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: B Galaxy Cluster Sample + Union 21 Sniasupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining H 0 using a model-independent method

2016

Front. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A discrepancy also occurs if we compare our estimate with the most recent estimate of H 0 obtained by SH0ES Collaboration, i.e., H 0 = 73.5 ± 1.4 km s −1 Mpc −1 [34]. On the other hand, our estimate is in agreement with several other estimates of H 0 that used samples with intermediate redshifts in a flat universe [35][36][37][38][39][40].…”

Section: A Flat λCdm Modelsupporting

confidence: 70%

A low Hubble Constant from galaxy distribution observations

Holanda,

Pordeus-da-Silva,

Pereira

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An accurate determination of the Hubble constant remains a puzzle in observational cosmology. The possibility of a new physics has emerged with a significant tension between the current expansion rate of our Universe measured from the cosmic microwave background by the Planck satellite and from local methods. In this paper, new tight estimates on this parameter are obtained by considering two data sets from galaxy distribution observations: galaxy cluster gas mass fractions and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements. By considering the flat and non-flat ΛCDM models, we obtain, respectively: H 0 = 65.89 +1.54 −1.50 km s −1 Mpc −1 and H 0 = 64.31 +4.50 −4.45 km s −1 Mpc −1 at 2σ c.l. in full agreement with the Planck satellite results. Our results also support a negative value for the deceleration parameter at least in 3σ c.l..

show abstract

“…In order to understand what could generate such a discrepancy, many attempts in the literature were done searching for new physics or systematic errors (e.g. Marra et al 2013, Spergel et al 2015, Efstathiou 2014, Wyman et al 2014, Holanda et al 2014). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Value of H₀ from Gaussian Processes

Busti

Clarkson²,

Seikel³

2014

Proc. IAU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new non-parametric method based on Gaussian Processes (GP) was proposed recently to measure the Hubble constant H0 . The freedom in this approach comes in the chosen covariance function, which determines how smooth the process is and how nearby points are correlated. We perform coverage tests with a thousand mock samples within the ΛCDM model in order to determine what covariance function provides the least biased results. The function Matérn(5/2) is the best with sligthly higher errors than other covariance functions, although much more stable when compared to standard parametric analyses.

show abstract

Robustness of H0 determination at intermediate redshifts

Cited by 11 publications

References 39 publications

Determining H 0 using a model-independent method

Determining H 0 using a model-independent method

A low Hubble Constant from galaxy distribution observations

The Value of H₀ from Gaussian Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Robustness of H0 determination at intermediate redshifts

Cited by 11 publications

References 39 publications

Determining H 0 using a model-independent method

Determining H 0 using a model-independent method

A low Hubble Constant from galaxy distribution observations

The Value of H0 from Gaussian Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Value of H₀ from Gaussian Processes