Re: PDF markup of July 21st draft

From: Serena Nobili (serena@lpnhep.in2p3.fr)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 07:12:04 PDT

  • Next message: Serena Nobili: "Re: PDF markup of July 21st draft"

    Dear Saul and Greg,

    I have not answer to this comment yet, and I apologize for the delay. As
    Greg noticed, 6/42 SNe are not well fitted on the rise, while 7/42 are
    well fitted on the rise. I have been looking for behavior of the 6 SNe,
    which are not well fitted, especially in the residuals of the Hubble
    diagram, that can indicate a systematic effect.
    Unfortunately, only 3 out of the 6 are in the Hubble flow. These are:

    # sn z Imax err_Imax residuals
      1992bo 0.0170 15.710 0.138 0.332
      1995bd 0.0140 14.939 0.162 -0.012
      1999aa 0.0150 15.250 0.146 0.148

    As you see from the last column the residuals do not indicate any
    systematic trend. Thus, I deduce the fitting procedure, although not
    optimal for describing the rise time, does not introduce systematics we
    should worry about. This is confirmed in the rest of the analysis
    presented in the paper, i.e. there is no different behavior of these 6
    SNe compared to the rest of the sample.
    I hope this answers Greg's comment.
    I am adding a comment about this in the paper.
    Cheers,

           Serena

    On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Saul Perlmutter wrote:

    > Hi Serena, I was looking in the email archive to see if you had
    > answered Greg on this one of his questions:
    >
    >
    > b) The systematic deviations from the fits need to be addressed head-on.
    > 6 of 42 SN have deviant rising fits while 7 or 42 have reasonable
    > rising fits (the rest lack data). So, the fitting method works only
    > half the time when there is rising data. Of those with a
    > well-constrained 2nd peak, 2 fit poorly while 16 are well-fit.
    > In particular, the poor chi^2 for 94D is due to a systematic failure
    > of the model, not to poor NIR photometry or underestimated error bars
    > (as the paper now suggests). As no high-z SNe have rising data, you
    > may simply have to cut out the rising part - at least as a test of
    > whether these systematic errors matter.
    >
    > I found the email saying that you *were* going to answer, but not the
    > answer. Did it not end up in the archive? Thanks, --Saul
    >
    >
    >
    >

    -- 
    

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://supernovae.in2p3.fr/~serena/ www.physto.se/~serena Tel +33 1 44277329

    Give free food at: http://www.porloschicos.com/ http://www.thehungersite.com/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 07:12:32 PDT