Re-add full code for review #2
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mi-dai
changed the title
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
My results are a bit different from the ZTF DR2 paper, where the reported fits were α ≈ -0.16 and β ≈ 3.05. The sign convention may vary depending on how the Tripp relation is written, so I’m not too concerned about that.
What stands out, though, is that my fitted β value is noticeably smaller in magnitude. My fit used the full sample of 3,576 SNe Ia, whereas the ZTF DR2 Hubble-diagram analysis used 2,629 SNe Ia. That suggests they may have excluded events with poor color measurements or other quality cuts that I haven’t applied yet.
Do you think I did the fit correctly? Should I be worried about the β values?