Re: host galaxy extinction systematic error

From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Sun May 18 2003 - 11:04:03 PDT

  • Next message: Greg Aldering: "Re: host galaxy extinction systematic error"

    On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 12:47:16PM -0500, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
    > > Given that, we have to reconsider what purpose the low-extinction subset
    > > serves. We are using it because models tell us that there should be
    > > a ridgeline of low-extinction. Therefore, we a supposing that as long
    > > as we throw out extincted SNe, nature is guarenteeing similarity in
    > > whatever small residual amount of extinction that remains. We have
    > > tested whether this assumption holds for the low-extinction subset,
    > > and we find that within our ability to measure, it does hold.
    >
    > Unless we want to put in some sort of prior assumption on the intrinsic
    > extinction distribution for purposes of evaluating the systematic, then
    > we can't do any better than that uncertainty of 0.015 or 0.025
    > magnitudes-- which is going to give us something like an 0.1 systematic
    > uncertainty in the flat-universe value of Omega_M on the low-extinction
    > subset. I'd like to avoid putting in a prior assumption, after we spend
    > all that time in the paper trying to discourage that sort of thing when
    > doing statistical E(B-V) corrections.

    OK, thinking about this more--

    Of course, as has been previously noted, we *are* using a prior on our
    low-extinction subset, that is E(B-V)=0+-0. This prior has the
    advantage of being unbiased even if your error bars are different at low
    and high redshift. (Sort of; in fact, there is an implicit bias,
    because if one set has worse error bars, it will keep more mildly
    extincted supernove than the other set. The prior doesn't *impose* a
    bias the way the Riess one does)

    If we really want to be self-consistent and run with this-- basically
    doing what you say, we've tested this assumption and it sure seems to
    hold-- then we should use *no* host galaxy extinction systematic
    whatsoever on the low-extinction subset. If somebody cares about
    extinction, then they look at Fit 6.

    This approach may actually make the most sense.

    Thoughts?

    -Rob

    -- 
    --Prof. Robert Knop
      Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
      robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun May 18 2003 - 11:04:04 PDT