From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 10:56:38 PST
I'm a little puzzled about the choice of 0.007 times the maximum flux
point. I guess this ensures that the tails don't wag the main lightcurve
fit, i.e. this is a way of giving a little more weight to the data near
maximum in the cases were the later error bars are just too good for the
errors in the tempate's tails. --Is that the goal? Perhaps we should think
of this really as an error bar on the template (which we might know
something about) rather than as modified error on the data?
"Robert A. Knop Jr." wrote:
> I'm about to go through and modify all my hamuy and riess low-z data
> files to introduce an "error floor".
>
> As per our discussion, I will set a minimum error equal to 0.007 times
> the maximum flux point in a given lightcurve data file. If any
> lightcurve point in that data file has a flux error smaller than this, I
> will replace that error bar with my minimum error bar.
>
> I think this is the procedure we agreed was best. Is there a reference
> on why this is a good idea, so that we can skip writing the
> justification?
>
> -Rob
>
> --
> --Prof. Robert Knop
> Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
> robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 10:54:39 PST