From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Mon Apr 19 2004 - 21:18:22 PDT
Hi Ariel,
Thanks for the comments. I will address most of your points in the next version
of the paper. I comment here on what I think are the major ones.
Ariel Goobar wrote:
> Fig 1. It seems a biy inappropriate to have the 8 SNe with unknown
> redshift as a bin with a z=1.9. Is it necessary to put them in
> the figure at all?
>
I can remove these from the plot. They are not important and I am not
strongly attached to them.
>
> p 8: I don't think I learn much from looking at Fig 2. Is it
> really necessary to include it??? Actually, I even fail to
> see what is "clearly shown" according to the text(!).
The aim of this figure is to show that once the percentage increase drops below
~30%, classification from the spectra alone is difficult (one concludes
a similar fact from the Subaru followed SNe). This could easily be stated
in the text and the figure could be removed.
>
> Also, Figs 3-42 take a lot of space. Is there really sufficient
> added value includind the finding charts that you think is worth
> the hit in space?
>
Most of the figures will appear in the electronic journal, so they will not
take too much space in the printed version. The figures aim to show the
locations of the SNe (a traditional thing) and the exact position of the slit,
which can be inferred from the figures and table 1.
>
> Another question I had is if we have any color information that
> would support/challenge any of the identifications we report?
>
I do not want to do this. The imaging data from these 8 runs are at various levels
of reduction and analysis. I do not think that it is feasible to include colour
information on all of them, becasue some of the candidates were not followed
at all. Not many of the candidates will be as well observed as 2000fr - aka Beethoven.
The principle aim of this paper is to classify the SNe on the spectra alone without adding
additional information to help in the classification.
However, I did use the lightcurves of SNe from the Subaru Fall 2002 and
CFHT Spring 2002 runs to show that even though the numbers of spectrally classified
SN~Ia in these two runs were low, most have SN light curves. I then go on to give
reasons for this. This was one of the reasons to include figure 2 in the paper. I did not
do this for the other runs as these runs were very successful at finding supernova.
CFHT 2000 - 1/1 - 100%
Spring 2001 - 9/12 - 75%
Subaru Spring 2002 - 3/5 - 60%
CTIO Spring 2002 4/4 - 100%
Overall 17/22 - 77%
Compare this with
CFHT Spring 2002 - 1/5 - 20%, which increases to 3/5 when lightcurve information is added. This is
a lower bound. The other two SNe should have lightcurve information (rolling search), but I do not
find the necessary informaiton.
Subaru Fall 2002 - 4/13 - 30%, which increases to 10/13 when lightcurve information is added. This
is a lower bound. The 3 others were not followed at all.
Cheers, Chris.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 19 2004 - 21:24:05 PDT