From: Alexander Conley (AJConley@lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:18:31 PDT
Hi Chris,
In response to your question about the high redshift residuals and
Rob's sample:
It's difficult to say. There aren't really very many SNe involved,
and the size of
the effect in the overall residuals is close to the size of the errors.
Out of
the three SNe that were excluded from the low-extinction subset,
98ax and 98as are both high (causing the split), but 98aw, which is the
worst
of the lot according to K03, is actually right around 0 residual. On
the other hand,
the errors are large enough this may not mean much. The other 3 SNe,
which
were not cut by Rob, are all around 0 residual, except 98ba, which is
similar
to 98ax,as. So the high peak is caused by 2 of the ones that Rob
excluded
and one that he didn't.
To be more quantitative:
SN z Resid sigma
97eq 0.54 -0.092 0.233
98ba 0.43 0.169 0.159
00fr 0.54 -0.006 0.144
98as 0.36 0.176 0.157
98aw 0.44 0.055 0.154
98ax 0.50 0.121 0.172
So I would say it's consistent with the story, but the number of SNe
just isn't
large enough to say anything stronger.
Alex
On Oct 15, 2004, at 9:57 AM, Chris Lidman wrote:
> A comment on the high redshift residuals
> -----------------------------------------
>
> The SNe you use from Rob's paper are
>
> 97eq
> 98as
> 98aw
> 98ax
> 98ba
> 00fr
>
> Note that 98as, 98ax and 98aw were excluded from Rob's low extinction
> subset. Do these 3 SNe dominate the rightmost blue histogram in figure
> 30 of your methods paper? If this is the case, then this
> adds extra support to the notion that extinction is the cause in
> the split of the high redshift residuals.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 11:18:34 PDT