From: Reynald Pain (reynald.pain@in2p3.fr)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 05:19:22 PST
Hi Alex,
Sorry for missing the discussion on your analysis. Here are a few
comments/suggestions on you new draft:
Abstract:
The sentence "disagree .. at 1.7 sigma" sounds odd : disagree is a
strong statement , 1.7 sigma is not much.
also the "favors ... at 1.6 sigma"
do the sigmas even include (known) systematics ?
for the 2nd statement I would say the CMAGIC and peak mag agree within
less than 2 sigma (I assume that this sigma is
not the statistical sigma of one of the method or any combination of
the two since the two measurement are done with the same data. you took
that into account right ?)
page 2 : 3rd paragraph : I think the stretch was introduced in P97
page 3 : 3rd paragraph : add ref Tonry03 and Barris04 who also use (I
think) the Bayesian approach to treat extinction ?
page 3 paragaph 4: you say that CMAGIC has advantages for evolution but
do not clearly say what the benefit is.
page 5 : "By studying well observed ..; " explain how
page 9 : top : "0.1 rest frame days" why not .1 and not 0.5, 1, ...
? justify specially if the analysis is very sensitive to it
page 17 : last paragraphe before 6.4 . i ma not sure the first 2
sentences are needed
systematics: Include some estimate of systematics from K-cor (other
than U-enhanced) (propagate uncertainties of K-cor)
Conclusion : same remark as for the abstract concerning the conclusions
drawn from 1.6 and 1.7 sigma deviations
acknowledgments : I did not find 1999ee in the list of SNe you use.
fig 4 : what about using a smaller binning (half size or even of 0.05
mag)
fig 7 : do not show the marginalized distrib ?
fig 9: in the caption give the value of alpha found
Cheers,
Reynald
Le 1 mars 05, à 19:06, Alexander Conley a écrit :
> The slides I was planning on showing at the Exec
> meeting today are available at
>
> http://panisse.lbl.gov/~aconley/cmag/scpexec20050301.pdf
>
> (hizsn/hizsn)
>
> Alex
>
>
>
___
reynald.pain@in2p3.fr
LPNHE, University Paris VI & VII, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05
Tel: +33 1 44 27 72 53 - Fax: +33 1 44 27 46 38 - LBL: +1 510 495 2595
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 09:49:36 PST