اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدUNITY: Confronting Supernova Cosmologys Statistical and Systematic Uncertainties in a Unified Bayesian Framework
292
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
While recent supernova cosmology research has benefited from improved measurements, current analysis approaches are not statistically optimal and will prove insufficient for future surveys. This paper discusses the limitations of current supernova cosmological analyses in treating outliers, selection effects, shape- and color-standardization relations, unexplained dispersion, and heterogeneous observations. We present a new Bayesian framework, called UNITY (Unified Nonlinear Inference for Type-Ia cosmologY), that incorporates significant improvements in our ability to confront these effects. We apply the framework to real supernova observations and demonstrate smaller statistical and systematic uncertainties. We verify earlier results that SNe Ia require nonlinear shape and color standardizations, but we now include these nonlinear relations in a statistically well-justified way. This analysis was primarily performed blinded, in that the basic framework was first validated on simulated data before transitioning to real data. We also discuss possible extensions of the method.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Models of the reionization and reheating of the intergalactic medium (IGM) at redshifts $z gtrsim 6$ continue to grow more sophisticated in anticipation of near-future 21-cm, cosmic microwave background, and galaxy survey measurements. However, there
are many potential sources of systematic uncertainty in models that could bias and/or degrade upcoming constraints if left unaccounted for. In this work, we examine three commonly-ignored sources of uncertainty in models for the mean reionization and thermal histories of the IGM: the underlying cosmology, halo mass function (HMF), and choice of stellar population synthesis (SPS) model. We find that cosmological uncertainties affect the Thomson scattering optical depth at the few percent level and the amplitude of the global 21-cm signal at the $sim$5-10 mK level. The differences brought about by choice of HMF and SPS models are more dramatic, comparable to the $1 sigma$ error-bar on $tau_e$ and a $sim 20$ mK effect on the global 21-cm signal amplitude. Finally, we jointly fit galaxy luminosity functions and global 21-cm signals for all HMF/SPS combinations and find that (i) doing so requires additional free parameters to compensate for modeling systematics and (ii) the spread in constraints on parameters of interest for different HMF and SPS choices, assuming $5$ mK noise in the global signal, is comparable to those obtained when adopting the true HMF and SPS with $gtrsim 20$ mK errors. Our work highlights the need for dedicated efforts to reduce modeling uncertainties in order to enable precision inference with future datasets.
We present the current estimate of instrumental and systematic effect uncertainties for the Planck-Low Frequency Instrument relevant to the first release of the Planck cosmological results. We give an overview of the main effects and of the tools and
methods applied to assess residuals in maps and power spectra. We also present an overall budget of known systematic effect uncertainties, which are dominated sidelobe straylight pick-up and imperfect calibration. However, even these two effects are at least two orders of magnitude weaker than the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations as measured in terms of the angular temperature power spectrum. A residual signal above the noise level is present in the multipole range $ell<20$, most notably at 30 GHz, and is likely caused by residual Galactic straylight contamination. Current analysis aims to further reduce the level of spurious signals in the data and to improve the systematic effects modelling, in particular with respect to straylight and calibration uncertainties.
We present the current accounting of systematic effect uncertainties for the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) that are relevant to the 2015 release of the Planck cosmological results, showing the robustness and consistency of our data set, especially f
or polarization analysis. We use two complementary approaches: (i) simulations based on measured data and physical models of the known systematic effects; and (ii) analysis of difference maps containing the same sky signal (null-maps). The LFI temperature data are limited by instrumental noise. At large angular scales the systematic effects are below the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature power spectrum by several orders of magnitude. In polarization the systematic uncertainties are dominated by calibration uncertainties and compete with the CMB $E$-modes in the multipole range 10--20. Based on our model of all known systematic effects, we show that these effects introduce a slight bias of around $0.2,sigma$ on the reionization optical depth derived from the 70,GHz $EE$ spectrum using the 30 and 353,GHz channels as foreground templates. At 30,GHz the systematic effects are smaller than the Galactic foreground at all scales in temperature and polarization, which allows us to consider this channel as a reliable template of synchrotron emission. We assess the residual uncertainties due to LFI effects on CMB maps and power spectra after component separation and show that these effects are smaller than the CMB amplitude at all scales. We also assess the impact on non-Gaussianity studies and find it to be negligible. Some residuals still appear in null maps from particular sky survey pairs, particularly at 30 GHz, suggesting possible straylight contamination due to an imperfect knowledge of the beam far sidelobes.
We probe the systematic uncertainties from 113 Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) in the Pan-STARRS1 (PS1) sample along with 197 SN Ia from a combination of low-redshift surveys. The companion paper by Rest et al. (2013) describes the photometric measurements
and cosmological inferences from the PS1 sample. The largest systematic uncertainty stems from the photometric calibration of the PS1 and low-z samples. We increase the sample of observed Calspec standards from 7 to 10 used to define the PS1 calibration system. The PS1 and SDSS-II calibration systems are compared and discrepancies up to ~0.02 mag are recovered. We find uncertainties in the proper way to treat intrinsic colors and reddening produce differences in the recovered value of w up to 3%. We estimate masses of host galaxies of PS1 supernovae and detect an insignificant difference in distance residuals of the full sample of 0.037pm0.031 mag for host galaxies with high and low masses. Assuming flatness in our analysis of only SNe measurements, we find $w = {-1.120^{+0.360}_{-0.206}textrm{(Stat)} ^{+0.269}_{-0.291}textrm{(Sys)}}$. With additional constraints from BAO, CMB(Planck) and H0 measurements, we find $w = -1.166^{+0.072}_{-0.069}$ and $Omega_M=0.280^{+0.013}_{-0.012}$ (statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature). Significance of the inconsistency with $w=-1$ depends on whether we use Planck or WMAP measurements of the CMB: $w_{textrm{BAO+H0+SN+WMAP}}=-1.124^{+0.083}_{-0.065}$.
We propose a method to overcome the usual limitation of current data processing techniques in optical and infrared long-baseline interferometry: most reduction pipelines assume uncorrelated statistical errors and ignore systematics. We use the bootst
rap method to sample the multivariate probability density function of the interferometric observables. It allows us to determine the correlations between statistical error terms and their deviation from a Gaussian distribution. In addition, we introduce systematics as an additional, highly correlated error term whose magnitude is chosen to fit the data dispersion. We have applied the method to obtain accurate measurements of stellar diameters for under-resolved stars, i.e. smaller than the angular resolution of the interferometer. We show that taking correlations and systematics has a significant impact on both the diameter estimate and its uncertainty. The robustness of our diameter determination comes at a price: we obtain 4 times larger uncertainties, of a few percent for most stars in our sample.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
