5 years ago

Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder.

Niccolò Dalmasso, Daniel J. Mortlock, Stephen M. Feeney

Estimates of the Hubble constant, $H_0$, from the distance ladder and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) differ at the $\sim$3-$\sigma$ level, indicating a potential issue with the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. Interpreting this tension correctly requires a model comparison calculation depending on not only the traditional `$n$-$\sigma

mismatch but also the tails of the likelihoods. Determining the form of the tails of the local $H_0$ likelihood is impossible with the standard Gaussian least-squares approximation, as it requires using non-Gaussian distributions to faithfully represent anchor likelihoods and model outliers in the Cepheid and supernova (SN) populations, and simultaneous fitting of the full distance-ladder dataset to correctly propagate uncertainties. We have developed a Bayesian hierarchical model that describes the full distance ladder, from nearby geometric anchors through Cepheids to Hubble-Flow SNe. This model does not rely on any distributions being Gaussian, allowing outliers to be modeled and obviating the need for arbitrary data cuts. Sampling from the $\sim$3000-parameter joint posterior using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, we find $H_0$ = (72.72 $\pm$ 1.67) ${\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ when applied to the outlier-cleaned Riess et al. (2016) data, and ($73.15 \pm 1.78$) ${\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ with SN outliers reintroduced. Our high-fidelity sampling of the low-$H_0$ tail of the distance-ladder likelihood allows us to apply Bayesian model comparison to assess the evidence for deviation from $\Lambda$CDM. We set up this comparison to yield a lower limit on the odds of the underlying model being $\Lambda$CDM given the distance-ladder and Planck XIII (2016) CMB data. The odds against $\Lambda$CDM are at worst 10:1 or 7:1, depending on whether the SNe outliers are cut or modeled, or 60:1 if an approximation to the Planck Int. XLVI (2016) likelihood is used.

Publisher URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00007

DOI: arXiv:1707.00007v2

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.

mismatch but also the\ntails of the likelihoods. Determining the form of the tails of the local $H_0$\nlikelihood is impossible with the standard Gaussian least-squares\napproximation, as it requires using non-Gaussian distributions to faithfully\nrepresent anchor likelihoods and model outliers in the Cepheid and supernova\n(SN) populations, and simultaneous fitting of the full distance-ladder dataset\nto correctly propagate uncertainties. We have developed a Bayesian hierarchical\nmodel that describes the full distance ladder, from nearby geometric anchors\nthrough Cepheids to Hubble-Flow SNe. This model does not rely on any\ndistributions being Gaussian, allowing outliers to be modeled and obviating the\nneed for arbitrary data cuts. Sampling from the $\\sim$3000-parameter joint\nposterior using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, we find $H_0$ = (72.72 $\\pm$ 1.67)\n${\\rm km\\,s^{-1}\\,Mpc^{-1}}$ when applied to the outlier-cleaned Riess et al.\n(2016) data, and ($73.15 \\pm 1.78$) ${\\rm km\\,s^{-1}\\,Mpc^{-1}}$ with SN\noutliers reintroduced. Our high-fidelity sampling of the low-$H_0$ tail of the\ndistance-ladder likelihood allows us to apply Bayesian model comparison to\nassess the evidence for deviation from $\\Lambda$CDM. We set up this comparison\nto yield a lower limit on the odds of the underlying model being $\\Lambda$CDM\ngiven the distance-ladder and Planck XIII (2016) CMB data. The odds against\n$\\Lambda$CDM are at worst 10:1 or 7:1, depending on whether the SNe outliers\nare cut or modeled, or 60:1 if an approximation to the Planck Int. XLVI (2016)\nlikelihood is used.\n

","htmlAbstract":null,"createdDate":"2019-10-02T16:39:00.000Z","media":null,"settings":null,"pdfUrl":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.00007","openAccessUrl":null,"authors":{"type":"json","json":["Niccolò Dalmasso","Daniel J. Mortlock","Stephen M. Feeney"]},"contentType":null,"actionButton":null,"journal":{"type":"id","generated":false,"id":"Journal:1253","typename":"Journal"},"headlineImage":null,"__typename":"V4Paper","doi":"arXiv:1707.00007v2","paperUrl":"http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00007","metrics":{"type":"id","generated":true,"id":"$V4Paper:152659.metrics","typename":"Metrics"}},"Journal:1253":{"id":"1253","name":"arXiv Astrophysics","cover":{"type":"id","generated":true,"id":"$Journal:1253.cover","typename":"Image"},"__typename":"Journal"},"$Journal:1253.cover":{"baseURL":"https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/stackademic/assets/journal_cover_arxviv.png","__typename":"Image"},"$V4Paper:152659.metrics":{"selectedCount":null,"viewedCount":null,"bookmarkedCount":null,"__typename":"Metrics"}}; window.__REDUX_STATE__ = {"feed":{"scrollPos":0,"openAccess":false,"performRefetch":{}},"history":{"historyChanges":0},"onboarding":{"stepsList":[{"stepId":"type","stepName":"What kind of researcher are you?","stepDesc":"","options":[]},{"stepId":"Role","stepName":"What role describes you the best?","stepDesc":"","options":[]},{"stepId":"Org","stepName":"Where do you work or study?","stepDesc":""},{"stepId":"ra","stepName":"Research Areas","stepDesc":"Select the research areas you are interested in","options":[]},{"stepId":"topics","stepName":"Topics","stepDesc":"Select the topics you are interested in","options":[]},{"stepId":"publications","stepName":"Publications","stepDesc":"We have selected some popular publications for you to follow","options":[]},{"stepId":"feeds","stepName":"Feeds","stepDesc":"We have created this feed based on your interests, you can edit and add more from the side menu","options":[]}],"step":1,"loading":false,"loadingText":"Loading...","selections":[{"name":"type","selection":null,"type":"single","mandatory":true},{"name":"role","selection":null,"type":"single","mandatory":true},{"name":"work_study","selection":null,"type":"single","mandatory":false},{"name":"ra","selection":[],"type":"multiple","mandatory":true},{"name":"topics","selection":[],"type":"multiple","mandatory":true},{"name":"publications","selection":[],"type":"multiple","mandatory":false},{"name":"feeds","selection":[],"type":"multiple","mandatory":false}],"topicsNextCursor":null,"topicsFetchingNext":false},"feedManager":{"isManageFeedsFlow":false,"manageFeedType":0,"createEditStep":0,"isSubmitBtnDisable":true,"isPrimaryBtnDisable":true,"activeFeed":{"id":null,"name":"","isOnlyOpenAccess":false,"isOnlyFollowedPublications":false,"inclusions":[],"exclusions":{"keywordsTopics":[],"subjects":[],"publications":[],"articleTypes":[],"authors":[]}},"feedsListCursor":0,"filters":[],"articleTypes":[],"subjects":[],"journals":[]},"common":{"researchAreasAndSubjects":null,"userFilters":[]}};
5 years ago

Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder.

Niccolò Dalmasso, Daniel J. Mortlock, Stephen M. Feeney

Estimates of the Hubble constant, $H_0$, from the distance ladder and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) differ at the $\sim$3-$\sigma$ level, indicating a potential issue with the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. Interpreting this tension correctly requires a model comparison calculation depending on not only the traditional `$n$-$\sigma

mismatch but also the tails of the likelihoods. Determining the form of the tails of the local $H_0$ likelihood is impossible with the standard Gaussian least-squares approximation, as it requires using non-Gaussian distributions to faithfully represent anchor likelihoods and model outliers in the Cepheid and supernova (SN) populations, and simultaneous fitting of the full distance-ladder dataset to correctly propagate uncertainties. We have developed a Bayesian hierarchical model that describes the full distance ladder, from nearby geometric anchors through Cepheids to Hubble-Flow SNe. This model does not rely on any distributions being Gaussian, allowing outliers to be modeled and obviating the need for arbitrary data cuts. Sampling from the $\sim$3000-parameter joint posterior using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, we find $H_0$ = (72.72 $\pm$ 1.67) ${\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ when applied to the outlier-cleaned Riess et al. (2016) data, and ($73.15 \pm 1.78$) ${\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ with SN outliers reintroduced. Our high-fidelity sampling of the low-$H_0$ tail of the distance-ladder likelihood allows us to apply Bayesian model comparison to assess the evidence for deviation from $\Lambda$CDM. We set up this comparison to yield a lower limit on the odds of the underlying model being $\Lambda$CDM given the distance-ladder and Planck XIII (2016) CMB data. The odds against $\Lambda$CDM are at worst 10:1 or 7:1, depending on whether the SNe outliers are cut or modeled, or 60:1 if an approximation to the Planck Int. XLVI (2016) likelihood is used.

Publisher URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.00007

DOI: arXiv:1707.00007v2

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.