Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-23T13:44:07.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the mutual consistency of different supernovae surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2015

N.V. Karpenka ,
F. Feroz  and
M.P. Hobson
N.V. Karpenka
Affiliation:
The Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, Department of Physics, Stockholm University, AlbaNova, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden email: nkarp@fysik.su.se
F. Feroz
Affiliation:
Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
M.P. Hobson
Affiliation:
Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is now common practice to constrain cosmological parameters using supernovae (SNe) catalogues constructed from several different surveys. Before performing such a joint analysis, however, one should check that parameter constraints derived from the individual SNe surveys that make up the catalogue are mutually consistent. We describe a statistically-robust mutual consistency test, which we calibrate using simulations, and apply it to each pairwise combination of the surveys making up, respectively, the UNION2 catalogue and the very recent JLA compilation by Betoule et al. We find no inconsistencies in the latter case, but conclusive evidence for inconsistency between some survey pairs in the UNION2 catalogue.

Keywords

methods: data analysis — methods: statistical — supernovae: general
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 10 , Symposium S306: Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology , May 2014 , pp. 322 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2015 

References

Amanullah, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 712Google Scholar
Betoule, M., et al. 2014, ArXiv e-printsGoogle Scholar
Feroz, F., et al. 2008, Journal of High Energy Physics, 10, 64Google Scholar
Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601Google Scholar
March, M. C., Trotta, R., Amendola, L., Huterer, D. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, P., Rajguru, N., Slosar, A. 2006, Phys.Rev.D, 73, 067302Google Scholar
Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riess, A. G., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009Google Scholar