Bias of the Hubble Constant Value Caused by Errors in Galactic Distance Indicators


  • S.L. Parnovsky Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv



cosmology, cosmological parameters, Hubble constant tension, statistical method


The bias in the determination of the Hubble parameter and the Hubble constant in the modern Universe is discussed. It could appear due to the statistical processing of data on the redshifts of galaxies and the estimated distances based on some statistical relations with limited accuracy. This causes a number of effects leading to either underestimation or overestimation of the Hubble parameter when using any methods of statistical processing, primarily the least squares method (LSM). The value of the Hubble constant is underestimated when processing a whole sample; when the sample is constrained by distance, especially when constrained from above. Moreover, it is significantly overestimated due to the data selection. The bias significantly exceeds the values of the erro ofr the Hubble constant calculated by the LSM formulae. These effects are demonstrated both analytically and using Monte Carlo simulations, which introduce deviations in the velocities and estimated distances to the original dataset described by the Hubble law. The characteristics of the deviations are similar to real observations. Errors in the estimated distances are up to 20%. They lead to the fact that, when processing the same mock sample using LSM, it is possible to obtain an estimate of the Hubble constant from 96% of the true value when processing the entire sample to 110% when processing the subsample with distances limited from above. The impact of these effects can lead to a bias in the Hubble constant obtained from real data and an overestimation of the accuracy of determining this value. This may call into question the accuracy of determining the Hubble constant and can significantly reduce the tension between the values obtained from the observations in the early and modern Universes, which were actively discussed during the last year.


T.M.C. Abbott, F.B. Abdalla, J. Annis et al. Dark energy survey year 1 results: A precise H0 estimate from DES Y1, BAO, and D/H data. MNRAS 480, 3879 (2018).

W. Beenakkera, D. Venhoeka. A structured analysis of Hubble tension e-print. arXiv:2101.01372 (2021).

J.P. Buonaccorsi. Measurement Error. Models, Methods, and Applications (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2010) [ISBN:


E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan et al. In the realm of the Hubble tension - a review of solutions. e-print arXiv:2103.01183 (2021).

G. Efstathiou. A lockdown perspective on the Hubble tension (with comments from the SH0ES team). e-print arXiv:2007.10716 (2020).

G. Efstathiou. To H0 or not to H0? MNRAS 505, 3866 (2021).

R.P. Feynman Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (WW. Norton Company, 1985) [ISBN: 978-0-393-35562-8].

W.L. Freedman, B.F. Madore, T. Hoyt et al. Calibration of the Tip of the red giant branch. ApJ 891, id. 57 (2020).

N. Jackson. The Hubble constant. Living Reviews in Relativity 18, 2 (2015).

I.D. Karachentsev, V.E. Karachentseva, S.L. Parnovskij. Flat galaxies catalogue. Astronomische Nachrichten 314, 97 (1993).

I.D. Karachentsev, V.E. Karachentseva, Y.N. Kudrya, M.E. Sharina, S.L. Parnovsky. The revised flat Galaxy catalogue. Bull. Special Astrophysical Observatory 47, 3 (1999).

K.G. Malmquist. On some relations in stellar statistics. Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I 100, 1 (1922).

K.G. Malmquist. A contribution to the problem of determining the distribution in space of the stars. Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I 106, 1 (1925).

S.L. Parnovsky, A.S. Parnowski. Influence of measurement errors and deviations from Tully-Fisher relationship on multipole structure of bulk galaxy motion Astron. Nach. 329, 864 (2008).

S.L. Parnovsky, A.S. Parnowski. Yet another sample of RFGC galaxies Astrophys. Sp. Science 343, 747 (2013).

S.L. Parnovsky, Y.N. Kudrya, V.E. Karachentseva, I.D. Karachentsev. The bulk motion of flat Galaxies on scales of 100 Mpc in the quadrupole and octupole approximations. Astronomy Letters 27, 765 (2001).

Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. A&A 641, A6 (2020).

A.G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan et al. Cosmic distances calibrated to 1% precision with gaia EDR3 parallaxes and Hubble space telescope photometry of 75 Milky Way cepheids confirm tension with ΛCDM. Astroph. J. Lett. 908, 6 (2021).

P.Y. Sharov, S.L. Parnovsky. Density distribution of matter on 75-Mpc scales derived by the POTENT method from the bulk motions of RFGC galaxies. Astronomy Letters 32, 287 (2006).

N. Sch¨oneberg, G.F. Abell'an, A.P. S'anchez et al. The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models. e-print arXiv:2107.102912021 (2021).

R.B. Tully, J.R. Fisher. A new method of determining distance to galaxies Astron. Astrophys 54, 661 (1977).

L. Verde, T. Treu, A. Riess. Tensions between the early and late Universe. Nature Astronomy 3, 891 (2019).




How to Cite

Parnovsky, S. (2021). Bias of the Hubble Constant Value Caused by Errors in Galactic Distance Indicators. Ukrainian Journal of Physics, 66(11), 955.



Fields and elementary particles