From: Andy Howell (DAHowell@lbl.gov)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 17:21:34 PDT
Rob,
Technically, 9878 and 98104 are not in the same category as probable
Ia's from the spectra alone.
The requirement was that the spectrum looks similar to a Ia spectrum,
but does
not have obvious SiII or SII. 97226 would be a "probable," but the case
for it is even stronger
than most "probables." The case for 9878 and 98104 is weaker than all
of the other probables.
But I have no problem if you want to redefine the probables to include
color information.
Technically, then we should reexamine the ones we threw out of the 42
sample with the
same criteria. If that changes their status, we get into an endless
loop of redoing things.
But if it doesn't the redefinition is fine. That is up to you and Peter.
-Andy
Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 08:22:45PM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
>
>
>>I understand that it is hard to code for all the different types of
>>observational situations which may arise, but to remove from the Hubble
>>diagram a SN based on such hard-won and expensive data, without first
>>imposing every realistic constraint on the spectral fits, just doesn't
>>make sense to me.
>>
>>
>
>This message is mainly for Andy and Peter, but I want to make sure Greg
>sees it since he's active in this discussion too.
>
>Several messages back I asked this question, but I think it got lost in
>all the back-n-forth.
>
>Way back when Andy sent me a list of "Definative Ias", "Probable Ias",
>and "Dunnos". The primary subsets (used for most of the analysis in the
>paper) omit the "Dunnos", but keeps the Probables. Subset 3 (used only
>in the systematic error section for "type contamination") omits the
>Probables.
>
>My question is: are the 9878 and 98104 spectra consistent with the
>Probable Ias? If so, then all we have to do is remove them from Subset
>3, and the only section which can change at all is that systematic error
>section. We leave them on the Hubble diagram for the rest of the paper,
>and nothing else in the analysis changes. This is a low pain way out,
>and indeed I would prefer this way out to arguing for another week or
>two about whether or not they should be in the primary subset or
>nowhere. (That is, if in fact this is honest it does just make sense to
>put them in Subset 3 given what we know today.)
>
>Even if this is a "too conservative" approach, and we later decide they
>should have been in the primary subset, for purposes of estimating a
>systematic error that's not such a terrible thing.
>
>-Rob
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 17:21:41 PDT