From: Sebastien Fabbro (seb@supernova.ist.utl.pt)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 11:10:49 PST
Hi Rob,
Sorry to be so late, I just realize there was a deadline yesterday. I
have then read all the other ones comments quickly. So I won't repeat
the ones already said, apart from good job, Rob.
Here are some comments:
- photometry: we need more precisions about the procedure, but I realize
you gave them in your last comments. What are the aj of the background,
what is kept fixed, and how photometric scaling was applied between
images. Although you fit things simultaneously, it is not really clear
how you do it without trusted geometrical transformations.
As Greg mentioned, is there a lightcurve paper in the buffer? If not,
then showing lightcurve and/or image/residuals of the fits could be a
good idea. If yes, then going into great details is not so needed in
this current paper, i.e. shorten the paragraph.
- lightcurve fits: to see whether antother free parameter counting
floating base is necessary (which should not), isn't a likelihood ratio
test per SNprobably the more adequate to see whether it is necessary?
(as long as the fits converge of course). This more or less goes for
comparing chi2/dof, but for poorly sampled SNe it can be different.
- dark energy fits: including the eqn of state param fit, then you
should include WMAP. To my opinion, this is a delicate operation, as
Alex Conley mentioned, and any crossing-ellipses paper needs care about
the fitting procedure. Thus may be all eqn of state fit in a following
paper, to get this one out quicker, and to avoid nasty referee comments.
- also why not including some quick null hypothesis test about the
cosmological constant as done by Meszaros (ApJ 580, p.12, 2002).
Seb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 11:09:41 PST