From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@LBL.gov)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 03:14:04 PDT
Hi Rob (and the rest of the SCP Exec),
I've been working on making plots for the Hubble diagram (with and/or without
binning/averaging and residual plots) that goes with or instead of the current Figure 5.
I'm getting close, I think, to some plausible plots based on the linear redshift plot we
used in P99, but tomorrow morning I will still try some more median alternatives to the
averaging approach. I'm attaching some of the plots I've been working on, so everybody
can look at them and send input or requests while I'm sleeping. Just to remind everybody,
the idea here is to come up with some plots that other scientists will want to use in all
their talks on dark energy (ideally, instead of using the plots from the other team!). I
think this last bit of effort before our final submission is likely to really pay off.
Rob, it took me a rather long time to figure out why your residual table didn't match
the plots in the paper. I eventually translated (most of) the names in the table to the
IAU names, and figured out that the following SNe are in the residual table you sent but
not in the paper or the other master tables you sent: 975, 9617, 972, 9739, and 9748
(which are 97J, 96ck, 97G, 97S, and 97K). Do you know what these SNe are? Also, as you
can see in the fourth plot in the attached Postscript file, there still seem to be some
rather small discrepencies between where the points appear and where they are in your plot
of Figure 5. Did you send the actual data used in the paper?
Finally, here are a few more edits for the paper:
1. Last sentence of Abstract has the term "assumption-free" that I think might give us
trouble (since it has already been pointed out at talks that there are some assumptions
involved). How about just making this "This analysis with no extinction-distribution
prior confirms that dark energy...." Also, two sentences earlier there is an extra
"with" that needs to be cut out of "Cosmological fits with using such extinction
corrections..."
2. Right after the second sentence of the last paragraph of section 2.2 (on p. 12), add
the parenthetical sentence: "(These tables are available in electronic form at
http://supernova.lbl.gov/.)" Also put this same sentence in a first footnote for each of
Tables 3, 4, and 5.
3. The last sentence of first paragraph of Section 3 doesn't make sense as it stands, so
add the word "subsamples" after the phrase "...demonstrate that similarly low
extinction...." So this would now read: "...and further, demonstrate that similarly
low extinction subsamples are obtained for both low- and high-redshift datasets...."
4. Last sentence in the second to last paragraph of Appendix A is missing the word
"are". It should read, "...and also that flux values are...."
5. The new sentence added to the captions of Figures 1 and 2 sounds like it means that all
ground based data have correlated errors, rather than that the ground based points for a
given supernovae have correlated errors (and the same goes for the HST data for a given
supernova). I think that this was said more clearly in the text.
6. Change the fifth sentence in the caption to Figure 9 to: "Note that the published
contours from Riess et al. ... presented results from fits that included nine well-observed
supernovae (that are comparable to the primary subsets used in the other panels), but also
four supernovae..."
7. A few edits for Tables 4, 5, and 6: First, these tables need two more columns (with
error bars) giving the m_B^effective (after stretch and K-correction, etc.) and the
m_B^effective after color correction (but only for the primary set SNe). These columns
will allow other people to make the same Hubble diagrams that we show -- and then they will
be much more likely to use this paper's results (and cite it) in the future literature.
(I hope this is not difficult to do -- I think it's important..)
Second, is there any reason that there are three significant digits after the decimal point
for many of the values *and* their error bars? This looks wrong, since there are no
uncertainties that drop below 0.01.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 03:13:08 PDT