You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 22, 2022. It is now read-only.
How many of these ~400 SN Ia are clearly normal SN Ia?
How many have spectra that look more like 91bg-like SN Ia?
How many look like SN Ia, but could be 91bg-like at other epochs?
What is the FOM?
Choose the classification approach (i.e., band v collective v SiFTO) quantitatviely by using the FOM.
Double check how SDSS flagged peculiar SNe and update the text accordingly.
Clarify which SNe are classificed as peculiar by SDSS and what their classifications are. If shown in the appendix, they should be highlighted in some way.
"After visually inspecting the light-curves of each selected target, we disregard any objects that are found to have significantly noisy light-curves, which leaves us with 15 remaining SNe": This should be a cut instead of a pure subjective decision that is not defined at all in the paper, e.g. use the median S/N or the cumulative S/N, or both.
Objects in Appendix A should be grouped into the passed and excluded. Excluded objects should include the reason.
"having an older average stellar age that the hosts of normal SNe Ia." -> "than the hosts"
Please replace LSST with VROResponse: We intend to refer to the survey, not the observatory
2002cx-like SNe, also known as SNe Iax (Li et al. 2003;Jha et al. 2006): add more current references, this has been a topic of significant advances in the last few years.
Change "We here " to "We here..."
Figure 1: Remove SNeII and unknown classifications.
Fig. 4: A few outliers are driving the axis limits, and it is hard to see the details in the central region. In particular the histograms are too small.
Fig. 5: The blue and green line are difficult to distinguish.
Fig. 4 caption: Clarify how "better" is defined
Fig 4 and analysis: Clarify we consider all observed SNe, not just SNe Ia.
"We note that three of the four SNe that were visually flagged by the SDSS SN team as potential 91bg-like objects are also labeled as 91bg-like SNe by our classifier."
Clarify what "visual" means. From the light curve, or spectra?
Fig. 6 is not annotated using open symbols like in Fig. 4
What does labeled as 91bg like SNe by the classifier mean? Clarify the bounds.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Apply spectroscopic classifications (Estimate effeciency of classification #45)
Double check how SDSS flagged peculiar SNe and update the text accordingly.
Clarify which SNe are classificed as peculiar by SDSS and what their classifications are. If shown in the appendix, they should be highlighted in some way.
"After visually inspecting the light-curves of each selected target, we disregard any objects that are found to have significantly noisy light-curves, which leaves us with 15 remaining SNe": This should be a cut instead of a pure subjective decision that is not defined at all in the paper, e.g. use the median S/N or the cumulative S/N, or both.
Objects in Appendix A should be grouped into the passed and excluded. Excluded objects should include the reason.
"having an older average stellar age that the hosts of normal SNe Ia." -> "than the hosts"
Please replace LSST with VROResponse: We intend to refer to the survey, not the observatory2002cx-like SNe, also known as SNe Iax (Li et al. 2003;Jha et al. 2006): add more current references, this has been a topic of significant advances in the last few years.
Change "We here " to "We here..."
Figure 1: Remove SNeII and unknown classifications.
Fig. 4: A few outliers are driving the axis limits, and it is hard to see the details in the central region. In particular the histograms are too small.
Fig. 5: The blue and green line are difficult to distinguish.
Fig. 4 caption: Clarify how "better" is defined
Fig 4 and analysis: Clarify we consider all observed SNe, not just SNe Ia.
"We note that three of the four SNe that were visually flagged by the SDSS SN team as potential 91bg-like objects are also labeled as 91bg-like SNe by our classifier."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: