Consistencies and inconsistencies in redshift-independent distances

ABSTRACT Redshift-independent distances underpin much of astrophysics, and there exists a plethora of methods to estimate them. However, the extent to which the distances they imply are consistent, while crucial for the integrity of the distance ladder, has been little explored. We construct a statistical framework to assess both internal (between measurements with the same method) and external (between method) consistency by comparing differences between distances to their quoted statistical uncertainties in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (NASA/IPAC) Extragalactic Data base of Distances (NED-D). 66 of the 76 indicators in NED-D are amenable to a consistency test by having at least two measurements to the same galaxy or at least one measurement to a galaxy also measured by another method. We find that only 12 of these methods produce self-consistent distances across literature determinations, of which seven are also consistent with distances to the same galaxies measured by all other methods. The most consistent six methods (M-stars luminosity, Novae, Masers, Globular Cluster Fundamental Plane, O- and B-type Supergiants, and BL Lac Luminosity) also give similar average distances to the mean of all indicators, while the 7th (Proper Motion) underestimates distances relative to the mean by 17.1 per cent. We also investigate consistency of Cepheid distances in the SH0ES 2022 catalogue, finding no evidence for unaccounted-for systematics. Our NED-D results imply that considerable work remains to obtain reliable distances by a multitude of methods, a crucial endeavour for constructing a multiply cross-checked and fully robust distance ladder.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2025-06-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staf1005
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Data Management and Algorithms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.49
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Consistencies and inconsistencies in redshift-independent distances

José Antonio Nájera, Harry Desmond
1 citations
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Data Management and Algorithms
1.49
article

Consistencies and inconsistencies in redshift-independent distances

José Antonio Nájera, Harry Desmond
article en
1 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Redshift-independent distances underpin much of astrophysics, and there exists a plethora of methods to estimate them. However, the extent to which the distances they imply are consistent, while crucial for the integrity of the distance ladder, has been little explored. We construct a statistical framework to assess both internal (between measurements with the same method) and external (between method) consistency by comparing differences between distances to their quoted statistical uncertainties in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (NASA/IPAC) Extragalactic Data base of Distances (NED-D). 66 of the 76 indicators in NED-D are amenable to a consistency test by having at least two measurements to the same galaxy or at least one measurement to a galaxy also measured by another method. We find that only 12 of these methods produce self-consistent distances across literature determinations, of which seven are also consistent with distances to the same galaxies measured by all other methods. The most consistent six methods (M-stars luminosity, Novae, Masers, Globular Cluster Fundamental Plane, O- and B-type Supergiants, and BL Lac Luminosity) also give similar average distances to the mean of all indicators, while the 7th (Proper Motion) underestimates distances relative to the mean by 17.1 per cent. We also investigate consistency of Cepheid distances in the SH0ES 2022 catalogue, finding no evidence for unaccounted-for systematics. Our NED-D results imply that considerable work remains to obtain reliable distances by a multitude of methods, a crucial endeavour for constructing a multiply cross-checked and fully robust distance ladder.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyVol. 541(2)
University of Portsmouth (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Data Management and Algorithms
1.49
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Consistencies and inconsistencies in redshift-independent distances — José Antonio Nájera, Harry Desmond · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS