论文标题
II型超新星对哈勃常数的5％测量
A 5% measurement of the Hubble constant from Type II supernovae
论文作者
论文摘要
来自头孢菌校准的IA型IA超新星（SNE〜IA）对Hubble-LemaTre常数的最严格的局部测量与通过宇宙微波背景辐射推断的值不同（{\ it planck} $+λ$ CDM）通过$ \ sim sim5σ$。这种所谓的“哈勃张力”已通过其他独立方法证实，因此似乎不是系统误差的可能结果。在这里，我们继续使用先前使用II型超新星提供另一种独立的方法来测量哈勃 - 莱玛特常数的方法。从13 sne〜II带有红色巨型分支（TRGB）宿主 - 半距离测量值的几何形状，cepheID或尖端，我们得出H $ _0 = 75.4^{+3.8} _ { - 3.7} $ \，km \，km \，km \，s $^，s $^{ - 1} $ \，MOUTARS MOUTIRTITION但是，与{\ it planck} $+λ$ cdm值的分歧为$ \ sim2.0σ$。仅使用cepheids（$ n = 7 $），我们发现h $ _0 = 77.6^{+5.2} _ { - 4.8} $ \，km \，s $ \，s $^{ - 1} $ \，mpc $^{ - 1} $，而仅使用trgb（$ n = 5 $），我们derive h $ _0 = 73.1^{+5.7} _ { - 5.3} $ \，km \，s $^{ - 1} $ \，mpc $^{ - 1} $。通过我们数据集的13个变体，我们得出了一个系统的不确定性估计值1.5 \，km \，s $^{ - 1} $ \，mpc $^{ - 1} $。这些变体得出的中位数仅在0.3 \，km \，s $^{ - 1} $ \，mpc $^{ - 1} $中，来自我们的信托模型所产生的$。因为我们只用Sne〜II代替Sne〜ia-并且我们发现头孢菌和TRGB H $ _0 $测量之间没有统计学上的显着差异，所以我们的工作没有表明SNE〜IA或CEPHEID可能是“ H $ _0 $张力”的来源。但是，我们警告说，我们的结论取决于适度的校准样品。随着将来的样本的增长，我们的结果应得到验证。
The most stringent local measurement of the Hubble-Lemaître constant from Cepheid-calibrated Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) differs from the value inferred via the cosmic microwave background radiation ({\it Planck}$+Λ$CDM) by $\sim 5σ$. 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-Lemaître 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 $\sim 2.0σ$ with the {\it Planck}$+Λ$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.
