From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 19:31:09 PDT
THIS IS A RESEND SO IT FOLLOWS IN THE RIGHT ORDER
Hi Rob,
OK, I've read through the Submission 2 draft. It is looking very good, and needs
just a little touch-up.
For discussion:
98aw, the reddened SN is over-corrected for extinction using standard R_B,
and becomes a > 2-sigma outlier in the fully extinction-corrected fits.
Is it worth a comment that 98aw might indicate that a lower R_B is
appropriate? Phillips 1999 finds evidence for a lower R_B too.
Have we ruled-out domain walls as dark energy? I thought they had w = -2/3,
but I don't know whether that is generic.
Is it possible that JKT is mislabeled in the tables? For 97ek the uncertainties
for JKT are as good as those from WIYN? Is it possible that this was WHT?
Important edits:
p2 "... and the density of massive clusters ... from dynamical ..." --->
"... , properties of massive clusters ... , and dynamical ..." --->
p2 "... of massive clusters and ..." --->
"... of galaxy clusters and dynamics and ..."
p3 "... clusters are sensitive ..." --->
"... galaxy clustering and dynamics are sensitive ..."
p3 "... low-extinction subset of high-redshift supernovae ..." --->
"... low-extinction subset of both low- and high-redshift supernovae ..."
p3 Take more ownership in the paragraph starting "Suillivan ... set stronger ..."
e.g. "In Sullivan .. we set stronger ..."
and "We found that ..." instead of "They found that ..."
What is the reference for "... as had previously been see at low redshift" ?
Note that 5-sigma is for a flat-universe - the P99 result is more general,
i.e., that on P(Lambda > 0) for any OM.
I suggest: "The natural next step --- presented in the current paper --- is to .."
p4 In the SN-typing paragraph I think we should mention that color constraints on
the SN type, from Peter, so the reader doesn't get too concerned at this early stage
"... although this identification is less secure for these two. (We ..." --->
"... although this spectral identification is less secure for these two. However,
the colors for these two SNe are inconsistent with other types. (We ..."
p6 The Whitemore and Dolphin references should be in the next paragraph
p8 Jha's thesis is 2002, not 2003
p18 "... 0.02 magnitudes \citep{hatano98}. ..." --->
"... 0.02 magnitudes, based on the models of \citet{hatano98}."
p18 "... are not from a flux-limited ..." --->
"... are not all from a flux-limited ..."
p18 "... H96 and P99 following ..." Is the P99 correct? I expected R99 there.
p20 "... have suggested that ..." --->
"... used the R98 $E(B$-$V)$ values to suggest that ..."
p20 "... These data show no such effect." --->
"... Our data show no such effect (nor did our P99 SNe)."
p24 At the end of the caption to Figure~8 add: "Contrary to the assertion of
\citet{rowanrobinson02}, when host-galaxy extinction is directly and fully
accounted for, dark energy is still required, with $P(\Lambda>0)=0.998."
@ARTICLE{rowanrobinson02,
author = {{Rowan-Robinson}, M.},
title = "{Do Type Ia supernovae prove {$\Lambda$}{\gt}0?}",
journal = {\mnras},
year = 2002,
month = may,
volume = 332,
pages = {352-360},
}
Might also cite:
@ARTICLE{2002MNRAS.336L..17F,
author = {{Farrah}, D. and {Meikle}, W.~P.~S. and {Clements}, D. and
{Rowan-Robinson}, M. and {Mattila}, S.},
title = "{The host galaxies of Type Ia supernovae at z= 0.6}",
journal = {\mnras},
year = 2002,
month = oct,
volume = 336,
pages = {L17-L21},
}
Note that this comment should probably be put somewhere more prominent.
p26 "... sets a limit of ..." --->
"... set a XX\% confidence limit of ..."
p26 "... at $z=0.15$ ..." --->
"... at $z_s=0.15$ ..." --->
p26 "... this distance $I$ ..." --->
"... the reduced distance to the surface of last scattering, $I$, ..."
p26 "... (I-I_0)/dI_0 ..." --->
"... (I-I_0)/\sigma_{I_0} ..."
p26 "... a limit on $w$ of -1.15 ..." --->
"... a measurement of $w=-1.15 ..."
p26 Where you say "Note that although ..." you seem to indicated that 2dFGRS
distortion maps and WMAP CMB measurements are not independent of each other,
but they are. It is only if we add in the the 2dFGRS power-spectrum constraints
that there will be some coupling.
p29 "... limits on $w$ are relatively mildly." --->
"... measurements of $w$ are mild relative to the current statistical uncertainties."
p34 The section 6 should really be in section 5. Also, I suggest calling this
section: "Possible additional sources of systematic uncertainties."
p36 Take Nic Walton out of acknowledgements - he is a coauthor!
Touch-up edits:
Author
list: put a \newline in front of "(THE SUPERNOVA COSMOLOGY PROJECT)"
Abstract: "on the E(B-V) distribution" --->
"on the parent E(B-V) distribution"
p3 "... of the result, ..." --->
"... of the supernova result ..."
p3 "... of host galaxy dust ..." --->
"... of host-galaxy dust ..."
p3 Start a new paragraph at "The HST provides ..." ?
p3 eliminate the clause, "from orbit"
p4 In the paragraph before section 2 starts why don't you tell the reader
the section number for each point we discuss? Especially point the reader
to Section 4, where they can find our main result.
p4 "... searches following the ..." --->
"... searches, following the ..."
p4 "... the red-side arm of ..." --->
"... the red side of ..." (I know Saul put in arm, but topologically it
isn't an arm, and is called the red side in the
in the docs I found.)
p4 you can cut "the Wide Field Camera 2" and "the Hubble Space Telescope" since
you previously reported their abbreviations.
p4 "Even in the latter case redshift ..." --->
"Even in the latter case, redshift ..."
p4 I would change some of the ordering in the filters paragraph. How about:
"... Table~1 lists the details of these observations. The F675W and F814W
broadband filters were chosen to have maximum sensitivity to these faint
objects, while being as close a match as practical to the rest-frame
$B$ and $V$ filters at the targeted redshifts. (Note that all of our
observing parameters except the exact target coordinates were fixed
prior to the SN discoveries.) The effective system transmission curves
provided by STScI indicate that, when used with WFPC2, F675W is most
similar to ground-based $R$ band while F814W is most similar to
ground-based $I$ band. ..."
p6 Add NOAO acknowledgement for IRAF.
p6 "(Note that this ...)" might be better as a footnote
p6 "(Although obtaining final ...)" might be better as a footnote
p6 "One of the great ... low background. However, CCD ... effect, which ..." -->
"Although one of the great ... low background, CCD ... effect which ..."
p7 "... extracted were corrected ..." --->
"... were corrected ..."
p7 I would prefer not to put "i.e., in the Hubble flow" in there. I know Saul
added it, but I don't think he considered the larger ramifications of
calling that redshift bound the Hubble flow.
p7 "... the $B$ and $V$ band data ..." --->
"... the $B$- and $V$-band data ..."
p8 "... to the $R$ and $I$ band data. (The peak $B$ band ..." --->
"... to the $R$- and $I$-band data. (The peak $B$-band ..."
p10 "... -0.4 ..." --->
"... $-0.4$ ..."
p16 "... value produced matched ..." --->
"... value matched ..."
p16 "... (These E(B-V) ...)" --->
"... (As needed, these E(B-V) ...)" otherwise it the loop doesn't end!
p16 "... and 1997O)." --->
"... and 1997O, the former two showing significant extinction)."
p17 You say "for the 42 ..." but I thought you weren't fitting the "1st seven"
p17 "... effective on $R_R$ ..." --->
"... effective $R_R$ ..."
p17 "... at each test value of $\alpha$ we propagated the ..." --->
"... the test value of $\alpha$ was used to propagate the ..."
p17 "... on host galaxy exintction ..." --->
"... on host-galaxy exintction ..."
p20 "... primary limits on ..." --->
"... primary measurement of ..."
p20 "... the high-redshift supernovae ..." --->
"... the $z>0.7$ supernovae ..."
p20 "... These limits are from Fit~3 of Table~8, ..." --->
"... These measurements are quantified by Fit~3 of Table~8, ..." --->
p21 "... with the the line ..." --->
"... with the line ..." (two the's)
p25 "... matter, $w=0$ while ..." --->
"... matter, $w=0$, while ..."
p25 "... shows the joint ..." --->
"... show the joint ..."
p26 "... limit on $w$ of $w<-0.83$ for ..." -->
"... limit of $w<-0.83$ for ..."
p28 You say "applying the systematic in the most likely direction"
by which I assume you mean the major axis? Did you just shift the
contours, or apply magnitude changes to the SNe and recalculate
the fits?
p29 "... in this paper and listed ..." --->
"... in this paper, as listed ..."
p29 "... To estimate the effect of this, we ..." --->
"... To estimate such an effect, we ..."
p30 "... from a significant amount ..." --->
"... from an amount ..."
p31 The paragraph starting with "A flat-universe fit ..." is awkward
p31 "... increased dispersion in ..." --->
"... increased dispersion and positive skewness in ..."
p32 "... a 20 \% universal ..." --->
"... a 20\% universal ..."
p32 "..., on average, the ..." --->
"..., the ..." (average is used twice in that sentance)
p32 "... from full search ..." --->
"... from full-search ..."
p32 "... the highest redshift members ..." --->
"... the highest-redshift members ..."
p33 "... well-defined, to warrant ..." --->
"... well-defined to warrant ..."
p33 "Fur" ---> "For"
p33 "... the extinction corrected fits ..." --->
"... the extinction-corrected fits ..."
p33 "... to be very good agreement ..." --->
"... to agree very well ..."
p34 R99 is out of order in references at start of this page
p34 "... beyond z=1 ..." --->
"... beyond $z=1$ ..."
p34 "... extinction along a wide ..." --->
"... extinction over a wide ..."
p34 "... not showing any evidence for reddening; however" --->
"... showed no grey dust signature (however"
p35 "... high-z supernovae ..." --->
"... high-redshift supernovae ..."
p35 "... smaller than our statistical ..." --->
"... smaller than, but approaching, our statistical ..."
p35 "... and z=053 ..." --->
"... and $z=5.3$ ..." Is this right?
p35 "... a complete new set ..." --->
"... a completely new set ..."
p35 "... towards a consensus $\Omega_M\sim0.2, \Omega_{\Lambda}\sim0.8$
"... towards a consensus $\Omega_M\sim1/3, \Omega_{\Lambda}\sim2/3$
(since may other estimates are closer to 0.3 than 0.2)
p36 In Table 9, "Gravitational Lensing" should follow "Host-Galaxy Extinction"
since that is their order in the text.
p36 "of $ol=0.82 ... $ " --->
"of $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.82 ... $ " --->
p36 "... with 2dFGRS ..." --->
"... with the 2dFGRS ..."
p37 Add the following:
Peter Nugent's LTSA grant #
thank Eric Linder
thank Ramon Miguel
Items for later:
It would be a simpler paper we we took out the 0.02 E(B-V) offset. As it
is someone can say that most of the Knop03 are too blue by counting the
number of minus signs in Table 3 or Table 7.
The figures of the SN+host should really be made from coadded HST PC images,
and us a log (or similar) lookup table.
We say very little about our ground-base calibration. You mention the use
of linear color terms in the body. You mentions the use of Landolt standards
in the appendix. Maybe in the appendix you should say a little more, highlighting
the fact that several photometric nights from CTIO go into the calibration.
Note that we use linear extinction and color terms. Also, you don't ever
give the zeropoint uncertainty, although I guess it is implied?
The axis numbering on the figures generally are too faint, and us a boring
(IDL default?) font.
If you are interested, it is possible that some of the old P99 SNe now have
I-band final references, as I took some in Nov at Keck.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 05 2003 - 19:31:10 PDT