new paper (fwd)

From: Alex Conley (aconley@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Thu Dec 18 2003 - 11:59:23 PST

  • Next message: Serena Nobili: "Re: new paper"

    Do we have an email archive for discussions surrounding Serena's paper?
    I don't see any mention of it in your email. If so, could you stick
    my comments to Serena in there.

    Alex

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:56:43 -0800 (PST)
    From: Alex Conley <aconley@ajanta.lbl.gov>
    To: serena@physto.se
    Subject: new paper

    Hi Serena,

       Happy holidays and all that -- and don't work too much on your paper
    over the break! It's an interesting paper -- it's too bad that there
    are so few high-z guys for you to work with.

    Anyways -- comments:

    Figures:

       a) It shouldn't be figure 1, figure 2, figure 3, etc., since they are
            all showing the same thing and have the same caption. You should
            make it figure 1, figure 1 continued, etc.
       b) Why no sn1991bg in figure 1? You state that 91bg and 97cn aren't
             there, but don't explain why. If this means that you cut all
             subluminous objects from the data set, you should state that
    more
             clearly, justify it better, and eliminate the paragraph
    explaining
             how you estimated the error bars for 91bg. If you don't
    actually
            use it for anything, don't waste a bunch of space talking about
            it.

    K-corrections:

    a) Do you have the right I band filter? First, you should give a
    source
       for standard Bessel I band. You probably have the transmission from
       Bessel PASP 102:1181 (1990). If that is the filter curve you are
    using,
       you need to be aware that the normalized passbands in Table 2 are NOT
       the dimensionless transmission R, but are actually lambda * R. That
    is,
       the filter is slightly bluer than you may think. This is not
    explained
       in the text of the paper.

       This is something that seems to have been done incorrectly in all
       previous published SCP work. The effect is not large -- if you would
    like
       to see the size of the difference, take a look at
         http://panisse.lbl.gov/~aconley/kdiff.eps
       which shows the old K-correction - the new one.

       This was discovered due to a note in Jha's thesis. I ended up
    emailing
       Mike Bessel directly to confirm this. So you should look up Bessel
       (1990), compare it to your filter curve, and if it the one you are
    using
       you have a (minor) problem -- but one that isn't too hard to fix.
       Just divide your filter file by lambda, renormalize, and redo all your
       K-corrections.

    b) You say you use time information fro the B-band data. Is this
       available for all of the SNe? For example, I have never found a good
       lightcurve for sn1991bg with error bars in the B band.

    Intrinsic Variations:

    a) Don't use the word feeble. Say " a weaker correlation was found..."
         instead of "a more feeble correlation". Feeble is not a formal
    enough
         word for a scientific paper.
    b) Move the information about where you got the host extinction earlier.
        It should be given right after you say that you use it and before you
        give the results of your stretch fit. That is, give all of the
        information about how you did your fit before you give the results.

    The I-band Hubble diagram

    a) You forgot the \ on a pm when you give \alpha_{I} at the beginning of
         this section.
    b) Figure 10: I don't know if it's possible to remove the 11 from the
        y axis at the bottom of the Hubble plot. It looks like it applies to
        both the Hubble diagram and the residuals, which isn't what you want.
    c) What is your source for the uncorrected Hubble diagram having
        sigma=0.4? That's higher than most quoted values, which are usually
        more like 0.3. Phillips '99 gives 0.24 for the B band without dm15
        correction.

    4. High redshift supernovae

    a) In figure 11 you show a redshifted I band. Redshifted to what?
         Probably to 0.5, but I don't see that noted in the figure or it's
         caption.

    b) Did you use the I_{max} values from table 2 for the low-z SNe? I
    don't
        think that is a good idea because the high-z SNe were not fitted in
    the
        same way. I think you have little choice but to refit all of the
    low-z
        SNe with the template so that you treat the high and low redshift SNe
        the same way. You also can't stretch or host galaxy extinction
    correct
        the low-z sample when combining it with the high-z sample -- it isn't
        clear from the paper whether this was done or not. In general, you
        have to make sure that all of the SNe that go into your cosmology fit
        are treated in as similar a fashion as possible.

    Alex



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 18 2003 - 13:08:32 PST