[Paper Review] $H_0$ Tension: Response to Riess et al arXiv:1810.03526

T. Shanks, L M Hogarth+1 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Oct 17, 2018

Cosmology and Gravitation Theories6 citations

TL;DR

This paper challenges Riess et al.'s claim that Gaia DR2 parallaxes confirm their Cepheid distance scale and $H_0$ value, arguing instead that Gaia data—when properly interpreted—suggest a 7%–18% upward revision of Cepheid distances and that the Local Hole can reduce $H_0$ by ~2%, potentially resolving the $H_0$ tension. The authors demonstrate that Gaia's parallax offset is not definitive proof of error in the Cepheid scale and that systematic uncertainties in both Gaia and Cepheid data remain unresolved.

ABSTRACT

Riess et al (2018c) have claimed there exist seven problems in the analyses presented by Shanks et al (2018) where we argue that there is enough uncertainty in Cepheid distances and local peculiar velocity fields to explain the current tension in $H_0$. Here, we take each of the Riess et al (2018c) points in turn and suggest that either they do not apply or that the necessary caveats are already made by Shanks et al (2018). We conclude that the main point to be inferred from our analyses still stands which is that previous claims by Riess et al (2018b) that Gaia parallaxes confirm their Cepheid scale are, at best, premature in advance of further improvements in the Gaia astrometric solution.

Motivation & Objective

• To challenge Riess et al.'s assertion that Gaia DR2 parallaxes confirm their Cepheid distance scale and $H_0$ value.
• To evaluate the validity of Gaia parallax offsets and their impact on the $H_0$ tension, particularly regarding saturated magnitudes and cluster Cepheids.
• To assess whether the Local Hole outflow effect can explain part of the $H_0$ tension through systematic peculiar velocity corrections.
• To demonstrate that the assumption of a Gaia parallax offset as definitive evidence for Cepheid scale error is circular and potentially misleading.
• To show that current Gaia data do not yet confirm the Riess et al. Cepheid scale, and that uncertainties in both Gaia and Cepheid measurements remain significant.

Proposed method

• The authors re-analyze Gaia DR2 parallaxes for Cepheids, comparing them to previous photometric parallaxes from HST and other sources, including saturated stars with $G<6$.
• They examine the fractional distance difference between Gaia and prior distance moduli as a function of $G$ magnitude to test for magnitude-dependent systematic errors.
• They model the Local Hole as a bulk outflow in the local universe and fit it to the SNIa Hubble diagram, allowing $H_0$ and $\Omega_m$ to vary.
• They use quasar-based parallax offsets from Lindegren et al. (2018) as a baseline, assuming a $-29\mu$as offset, and assess its statistical and systematic uncertainties.
• They compare the Riess et al. (2018b) method of fitting a scale and offset between Gaia and Cepheid parallaxes to their own approach, highlighting circularity in attribution of offset to Gaia.
• They re-evaluate cosmic variance estimates from Wu & Huterer (2017) and Odderskov et al. (2017) to assess the significance of the Local Hole as a $\Lambda$CDM fluctuation.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Do Gaia DR2 parallaxes confirm the Cepheid distance scale used by Riess et al. (2018b), or do they instead suggest a revision upward in Cepheid distances?
• RQ2 Is the observed $-29\mu$as Gaia parallax offset a reliable indicator of error in the Cepheid scale, or could it stem from systematic issues in the Cepheid data?
• RQ3 To what extent can the Local Hole outflow effect reduce $H_0$ and improve the fit to the SNIa Hubble diagram?
• RQ4 How significant is the Local Hole as a cosmic variance fluctuation in $\Lambda$CDM, and does it challenge standard cosmology?
• RQ5 Are the claims by Riess et al. (2018c) that S18 made seven analytical errors valid, or are they based on misinterpretations of methodological choices?

Key findings

• Gaia DR2 parallaxes suggest a 7%–18% upward revision of Cepheid distances relative to the Riess et al. (2018b) scale, depending on the sample.
• The fractional distance difference between Gaia and prior parallaxes shows no significant dependence on $G$ magnitude, indicating that saturation effects at $G<6$ are sub-dominant for nearby Cepheids.
• Including the Local Hole outflow effect marginally improves the SNIa Hubble diagram fit, reducing $\chi^2$ from 1035.7 to 1034.1 when $H_0$ and $\Omega_m$ are both fitted.
• The Local Hole's $1.8\%$ rise in $H_0$ corresponds to a $3.9\sigma$ fluctuation under Wu & Huterer (2017), or as low as $1.9\sigma$ under Odderskov et al. (2017), depending on SNIa selection.
• The assumption that a constant parallax offset implies Gaia error is circular, as the same offset could arise from systematic errors in the Cepheid scale itself.
• The authors conclude that Gaia DR2 parallaxes do not confirm the Riess et al. Cepheid scale and that current data may instead support a resolution of the $H_0$ tension through distance revisions and local dynamics.