From: Alex Conley (AJConley@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 11:19:49 PDT
Greg provided comments on a printed version of the
paper. For my own use, as well as to preserve an electronic
version of his comments, I have typed them.
General comments:
Does \sigma_{int} come from low-z only, or hi-z too?
Greg would like to see <w> from my analysis, including WMAP
and 2dF because people are interested in systematics there
as well.
In many places in the paper (when describing CMAGIC), change
evolution to behavior
Title: Change acceleration to accelerating expansion
Abstract:
from a blind analysis -> from an analysis
Add a third element to the advantages: a independence from
(lightcurve) templates.
Introduction:
1st paragraph: Mention implications for underlying physical
theory of Lambda.
3rd paragraph: explanations for the SNe measurement -> change
measurement to result
4th paragraph: In Sullivan et al. (2002) we -> Greg has circled
we. I'm not sure why.
Add the word morphological in from of subsets in the last
sentence.
5th paragraph: Colors are not always poor, but multiplying by
4 makes things much worse.
Again, we is circled, this time referring to K03.
Reference to Aguirre in terms of the extinction assumption
that things are the same at high and low redshift.
6th paragraph: Add 'as a "standardized candle" to the sentence
For convenience, virtually all previous studies have used the
B magnitude at maximum brightness, m_B, but there is ...
Add MLCS to list of ways to parameterize lightcurve width.
7th paragraph: Remove superfluous at in last sentence.
Section 2: CMAGIC
2.1
1st paragraph: Put B in mathmode $B$
Reverse similar and status
2nd paragraph:
distribution of slopes is fairly narrow -> distribution of
slopes in this linear region
Capitalize figure in figure 2
3rd paragraph:
Put $$ around B
This magnitude is used -> This magnitude, B_BV0.6, is used
4th paragraph:
cite Lira, others? Presumably refers to the claim that
an unextinguished SNe Ia has B-V = 0ish around max.
Put $$ around B and s
Change well to better in second to last sentence
Add a comment after Fortunately in last sentence
2.2
1st paragraph:
Is the script font standard for R_B?
Add refs for typical value of R_B and variation along different
lines of sight.
Suggests Draine or Spitzer for dust shielding of UV light
2nd paragraph:
Side note: QSO variability a factor. I believe Greg is
referring to the Falco extinction law measurements.
LMC/SMC extinction laws in the infrared: Greg is curious
about this.
Greg does not think that more dust means higher R_B because
only grain size distribution and composition affect R_B.
3rd paragraph:
Don't mention Phillips '99 R_B measurement.
4th paragraph:
Side note: This is a nice discussion, but will it divert the
reader?
Note about Riess extinctions: Careful of selection effects.
Last paragraph: followed->pursued in last sentence.
2.3
Side note: OK, this provides some symmetry w/ 2.2
Section 3: Data
2nd paragraph: plausibly a Ia -> Question: What level of confidence?
Section 4: CMAGIC Fitting Procedure
1st paragraph:
Correlation matricies for literature SNe -> Question: Did you
ask? Are our covariance matricies published?
5th paragraph:
Use different font for synphot
Add note that our assumption about high and low redshift SNe
has to do with the distribution of \beta_BV values
Section 5: CMAGIC relations at high redshift
Suggestions for what more to say:
Play up the fact that they follow the CMAG relation at all.
Put X^2 to N in table and point to goodness of fit.
Calculate max B_BV0.6 diff between high and low redshift.
Section 6: Determining the Cosmological parameters
6.1
Equation 4: Should script K be non-script?
1st paragraph:
Font for sin, sinh
and the identity for K=0 -> remove the
P is proportional to exp(-chis2/2) not equal to it
6.2
1st paragraph:
Add 'given that we are performing a blind analysis' to
the sentence that ends 'changing these cuts in great
detail.'
Move first earlier in last sentence.
magerror: Question: Are uncertainties less well behaved too?
(i.e., no longer nice error ellipses?)
daygap (I think) : You could consider a weighting function.
I'm not quite sure what Greg means here.
stretchmax : Question: because it is not an issue?
4th paragraph (counting is difficult)
Is 97O manually excluded from the sample in advance or after
the fit?
Probcut -> Font and case
Question about probcut: Are the SNe with inconsistent data
re-examined later?
Did you examine the final chisquare distribution of the
fits -> does it agree with P(chisq|N)?
5th diagram:
You need a Venn diagram to explain the multiple cuts, although
the topology might not be 2D.
6.3
2nd paragraph: decided on and any -> on to upon
5th paragraph: How was om=1, ol=1.1 chosen?
Section 7: Cosmology results
1st paragraph:
The chisquare of the fit is 50.3 for 55 degrees of freedom.
This is circled and the note subsamples? is written below
it. I think that Greg means he would like to know what the
chisq contribution from the high and low redshift samples
are.
2nd paragraph:
Break for new paragraph after flat universe om is given.
Section 8: Analysis of results
2nd paragraph:
S is roughly 1 -> replace 1 with 0.7-0.8, since that is what
I fit.
4th paragraph:
dust law being responsible for a -> dust law causing a
Section 9: Systematics
9.1
1st paragraph:
through things such as -> things replaced with operations
9.2
3rd paragraph:
The Z-band transmission function faries considerably more
from detector to detector than the filters in our sample
because the high wavelength cutoff is not determined by
the filter alone -> The Z-band transmission function
baries considerably more between datasets because the
high wavelength cutoff is determied by the detector rather
than the filter.
5th paragraph:
Relative insensitivity -> reduced
9.3
Questions:
Would non-Ia have reasonable beta? If not, is this a way
to construct a test?
What about using only 2 out of the 3 Hamuy-Riess-Jha,
or quote the mean residual from each subset. Do this for
all major datasets, and for V->B, R->B, I->B
Appendix A:
Side point: Since dm15 is a template method for s < 0.8 and
s > 1.1, it is unaffected because P(bump) is 0 or 1.
2nd paragraph:
Therefore this is not an issue with the low redshift SNe,
but is a potential systematic for the cosmology fits because
the lower quality of the high redshift data makes bumps
difficult -> Therefore, while this is not an issue with the
low redshift SNe, it is a potential systematic for the
cosmology fits due to the lower quality of the high redshift
data making bumps difficult ...
3rd paragraph:
Does -> do for only 1 out of 13 does.
4th paragraph:
inconsistent with a bump at at least the 2.5 ->
at least replace with greater than
5th paragraph :
There is a was that should be an is
Figures:
Figure 3:
Use vectors to show changes?
Figure 4:
Cut in on X axis.
F test or KS test on this? Low-z appear redder?
Figure 5:
F or KS test on this? (Looks great by eye)
Is P(bump) correlated with beta?
Is beta correlated with s?
Figure 9:
Circles the first 3 high-z points and asks:
K-correction or dust issue? What about galaxy
density, run etc.?
Will you show best fit flat?
Check offset to chisq by photometry source and report.
Figure 10:
Need version with Bbv and m_B overlain. Also
some graphical comparison with previous work.
Figure 11:
Quote r - linear correlation coefficient?
Any sign of slope ne 1?
Is scatter decreasing for resids that are fainter?
Could bump be the cause?
Did you fit CMAG_resid vs. Bmax_resid too? Do you get
1/S?
Add residual to axis labels
Figure 12:
Add a scientific conclusion to caption for those who just
look at figures.
Add observed band to bottom of plot, label model as such.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 11:19:53 PDT