From: Reynald Pain (reynald.pain@in2p3.fr)
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 08:48:55 PST
Hi Alex,
Thanks!
(concerning the "insensitive/sensitive" remark. that was my
mistake/misreading...)
Cheers,
Reynald
Le 9 mars 05, à 23:36, Alexander Conley a écrit :
> Hi Reynald,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Sorry it's taken so long to respond;
> I have been busy applying for a Canadian Work Permit and the like.
>
> I have put a new version on the webpage (version 1.52) reflecting
> your suggestions. See below for details -- including some questions
> of clarification that I have for you.
>
> Alex
>
>> 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 ?
>
> I agree, it isn't totally obvious what to say here. Perhaps the more
> neutral
> 'differs from a flat universe'. I'm not completely comfortable saying
> agrees at less than 2 sigma, since 2 sigma isn't totally negligible,
> but you are correct that disagree is a stronger statement than 1.7
> sigma
> warrants.
>
> The numbers include systematics, and correlations, and the abstract
> now reflects this.
>
>> page 2 : 3rd paragraph : I think the stretch was introduced in P97
>
> Included
>
>> page 3 : 3rd paragraph : add ref Tonry03 and Barris04 who also use (I
>> think) the Bayesian approach to treat extinction ?
>
> Added
>
>> page 3 paragaph 4: you say that CMAGIC has advantages for evolution
>> but do not clearly say what the benefit is.
>
> Modified to say 'and possibly evolution, depending on the model.'
>
>> page 5 : "By studying well observed ..; " explain how
>
> The real details are tedious and inappropriate to include, but I have
> added the text
>
> 'Using well observed low redshift SNe to
> determine the earliest and latest points in the linear region as a
> function
> of stretch, we find that beginning date of the linear region is ...'
>
>> 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
>
> Uh, the same sentence says that 'the analysis is quite insensitive to
> this
> value'. More specifically, it can range from 0.1 to 7 without having
> any
> difference at all. Are you saying that I should simply remove this
> sentence?
> (However, that should have read 0.5 days).
>
>> page 17 : last paragraphe before 6.4 . i ma not sure the first 2
>> sentences are needed
>
> Experience suggests that people do ask how well the secret
> offset worked, so it seemed worth including.
>
>> systematics: Include some estimate of systematics from K-cor (other
>> than U-enhanced) (propagate uncertainties of K-corr
>
> I would love to have a better handle on the kcorr systematic. What do
> you
> suggest?
>
> If you are saying to do what Rob, Riess, etc. do, which is to add
> around 0.02
> mag uncertainty to each magnitude, this isn't a systematic. In fact,
> it's totally
> useless even as a statistical error, since it is already included
> automatically
> in \sgi .
>
>
>> Conclusion : same remark as for the abstract concerning the
>> conclusions drawn from 1.6 and 1.7 sigma deviations
>
> Again toned down slightly.
>
>> acknowledgments : I did not find 1999ee in the list of SNe you use.
>
> Yes... This raises an interesting point. 99ee was not present in the
> primary fit, but was used in some of the systematics tests
> (specifically,
> when the extinction correction was weakened). So I would rather not
> include it in the list of data, but I did use it and feel like I
> should thank
> those who provided it. I will add some text to the acknowledgements
> reflecting this.
>
>> fig 4 : what about using a smaller binning (half size or even of 0.05
>> mag)
>
> I played around with lots of binnings, and cutting the bins in half
> introduces a lot of noise. The highest bins get down to 8 events, so
> aren't too bad, but the flanks become hard to read.
>
>>
>> fig 7 : do not show the marginalized distrib ?
>
> I personally agree with you, but am waiting to see what other
> people think before I remove it.
>
>> fig 9: in the caption give the value of alpha found
>>
> Okay.
>
>
>
___
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 : Mon Mar 14 2005 - 08:48:59 PST