Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
1998 · paper · Astronomy
Presents observations of 10 new high-redshift type Ia supernovae and uses them with earlier data to constrain cosmological parameters. Distant supernovae appear farther than expected, favouring a positive cosmological constant and an accelerating expansion; the Universe's age is estimated at 14.2 ± 1.5 billion years.
Checked: PDF from arxiv.org, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
20 findings
Substance The abstract says ΩM = 1 "is formally ruled out at the 7σ to 8σ confidence level", but §4.1 says ΩM = 1 "is ruled out at the 7σ to 9σ level by either method".
- p. 2 Abstract
is formally ruled out at the 7σ to 8σ confidence level
- p. 14 Sec 4.1, flat-Universe paragraph
is ruled out at the 7σ to 9σ level by either method
- p. 2 Abstract
formally ruled out at the 7σ to 8σ confidence level
- p. 14 Sec 4.1
ruled out at the 7σ to 9σ level by either method
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Both statements are on the page images (p2 abstract, p14). Under the flat prior, ΩM = 1 is the same hypothesis as ΩΛ = 0, and the abstract's preceding sentence gives ΩΛ > 0 at "7σ and 9σ". In Table 8 (p51 upright) the flat-prior ΩM values are 0.28±0.10 / 0.17±0.09 for the 15-SN spectroscopic rows and 0.28±0.10 / 0.16±0.09 for the 9-SN rows. These correspond to about 7σ and 9σ for either sample. No sample in the paper supports "8σ", and no statement explains the difference. The authors should confirm which range is intended.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance §4.1 gives the flat-Universe MLCS result as "ΩΛ = 0.68 ± 0.10 (ΩM = 0.32 ± 0.10)" and cites Table 8, but the Table 8 MLCS(9) row gives Ωtot≡1 ΩM = 0.28±0.10, and no MLCS row gives 0.32.
- p. 14 Sec 4.1, flat Universe
ΩΛ = 0.68 ± 0.10 (ΩM = 0.32 ± 0.10)
- p. 51 Table 8, MLCS(9) row, Ωtot≡1 column
0.28±0.10
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 8 (p51 upright) gives MLCS flat-prior ΩM values of 0.28, 0.24, 0.28 and 0.24 across its rows. The template value in the same sentence (0.16±0.09, ΩΛ = 0.84) matches the ΔM15(9) row, so the sentence follows the 9-SN rows. For MLCS that row implies ΩΛ = 0.72. The text and table disagree, and the authors must say which value is right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance For ΩM≡0.2, §4.1 gives "ΩΛ = 0.65 ± 0.22 and ΩΛ = 0.88 ± 0.19" (MLCS, template; see Table 8). In Table 8, 0.65±0.22 is the MLCS+Snap.(15) value and 0.88±0.19 is the ΔM15(9) value. The MLCS(9) row gives 0.68 ± 0.24.
- p. 14 Sec 4.1, ΩM≡0.2 constraint
ΩΛ = 0.65 ± 0.22 and ΩΛ = 0.88 ± 0.19
- p. 51 Table 8, MLCS(9) row, ΩM≡0.2 column
0.68 ± 0.24
- p. 14 Sect. 4.1
ΩΛ = 0.65 ± 0.22
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 8 (p51 upright), ΩM≡0.2 column: MLCS+Snap(15) 0.65±0.22, ΔM15+Snap(15) 0.84±0.18, MLCS(9) 0.68±0.24, ΔM15(9) 0.88±0.19. The rest of the paragraph uses the 9-SN rows: 99.6% (2.9σ) and >99.9% (3.9σ), and ΩΛ≡0 values −0.38 and −0.52. So the sentence pairs values from two different samples. The MLCS value is either the wrong row or the template value is.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance §4.1 says the combined PDF covers "∼50 SNe Ia which includes 15 SNe with 0.16 ≤ z ≤ 0.62", but the 15 high-z SNe include the six Table 7 snapshot objects, one of which is SN 1997ap* at z = 0.83.
- p. 15 Sec 4.1, combined PDF paragraph
∼50 SNe Ia which includes 15 SNe with 0.16 ≤ z ≤ 0.62
- p. 71 Table 7
1997ap*
- p. 71 Table 7
1997ap* 0.83
- p. 15 Sec. 4.1
all ∼50 SNe Ia which includes 15 SNe with 0.16 ≤z ≤0.62
Judge's note: Table 7 (p71) lists six high-z snapshot SNe, all with z ≥ 0.16, and the largest is 1997ap at 0.83. Table 8 labels the combined set MLCS+Snap.(15), i.e. 9 well-observed plus 6 snapshot SNe. The upper bound 0.62 is the maximum for the new SNe only, so the stated range leaves out a member of the set.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 1 gives SN 1995ao '0.24a' and SN 1995ap '0.30b', while Table 7 and §5.1 give 'SN 1995ao (z = 0.30) and SN 1995ap (z = 0.23)'.
- p. 60 Table 1
0.24a
- p. 71 Table 7, 1995ao and 1995ap rows
0.30
- p. 20 Sec 5.1
SN 1995ao (z = 0.30) and SN 1995ap (z = 0.23)
- p. 60 Table 1, Redshift column
1995ao 95 Nov 23 Keck-I 510-1000 0.24
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I read Table 1 (p60), Table 7 (p71) and the §5.1 crop (p20). Table 1 has 1995ao 0.24 (footnote a, host emission lines) and 1995ap 0.30 (footnote b, broad SN features). Table 7 and the text both have 1995ao 0.30 and 1995ap 0.23. Nowhere does the paper describe a second redshift determination, so these are two values for the same quantity. The authors would need to say which values are correct.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance §5.4: "discarding the seven SNe Ia within 7000 km s−1", but Table 10 lists eight nearby SNe with log cz < log 7000 = 3.845: 1992bo, 1992bc, 1994S, 1995D, 1995E, 1995ak (3.820), 1995bd and 1992al.
- p. 23 §5.4 Effect of a Local Void
discarding the seven SNe Ia within 7000 km s−1
- p. 72 Table 10, log cz column
1995ak 3.820
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I counted all 27 rows of Table 10 on p72. Eight are below 3.845. The next lowest values (1994M 3.859, 1993H 3.871, 1992ag 3.891, 1992P 3.896) are above the cut. SN 1995ak at 10^3.820 ≈ 6607 km/s is clearly inside the limit. The paper does not mention any different velocity frame. The authors should say whether seven or eight SNe were removed.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance The Figure 12 caption says 'the absence of data blueward of 4500 Å' for SN 1996E, but §5.7 says the coverage 'does not extend blueward of a rest wavelength of 4225 Å', and the plotted 96E spectrum starts near 4200 Å.
- p. 36 Figure 12 caption
absence of data blueward of 4500 Å
- p. 25 Sec 5.7
does not extend blueward of a rest wavelength of 4225 Å
- p. 57 Figure 12 spectrum panels
96E
- p. 25
does not extend blueward of a rest wavelength of 4225 ˚A rendering
Judge's note: I read the caption crop (p36), the §5.7 crop (p25) and the upright Figure 12 (p57). In both spectrum panels the thin 96E trace begins at about 4200 Å on the rest-wavelength axis, which matches the text value of 4225 Å. It is also close to the Table 1 range for 1996E (600–990 nm at z=0.43). The 4500 Å in the caption is the diagnostic wavelength §5.7 uses for 1996H and 1996I, so the caption appears to misstate the data limit for 1996E.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance The last SN 1996J point is at JD '166.6' (1996 Mar 24, V35 = 22.76(0.07)) in Table 2 but at JD '168.7' (V = 23.48(0.07), K_V = −0.73) in Table 4.
- p. 62 Table 2, SN 1996J, last row
166.6
- p. 68 Table 4, SN 1996J, last row
168.7
- p. 62 Table 2, SN 1996J last row
166.6 ... 1996 Mar 24 ... 22.76(0.07)
- p. 68 Table 4, SN 1996J last row
168.7 ... 23.48(0.07)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I read Table 2 (p62) and Table 4 (p68). Table 4's V and K_V reproduce Table 2's V35 for this row, and its other 1996J rows match Table 2 (157.6: 21.83+0.69=22.52; 161.8: 22.05+0.71=22.76). Table 2 has no observation at 168.7, and its date of Mar 24 is consistent with 166.6 given Mar 19 = 161.8. So the same point carries two different epochs.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance For SN 1996K at JD 168.5, Table 4 has V = '23.73(0.19)' with K_V = −0.63, but Table 2 has V35 = '23.20(0.19)', and 23.20 + 0.63 = 23.83.
- p. 69 Table 4, SN 1996K, JD 168.5
23.73(0.19)
- p. 63 Table 2, SN 1996K, 1996 Mar 26
23.20(0.19)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I read Table 2 (p63) and Table 4 (p69). The neighbouring 1996K row reproduces to 0.01 mag (165.6: 23.17+0.62=23.79 against a printed 23.80). At 168.5 the uncertainties match (0.19) but the magnitudes differ by 0.10, which rounding cannot explain. Either the V value or K_V in Table 4 is inconsistent with Table 2.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance For SN 1995ap at JD 51.6, Table 4 has V = '21.40(0.08)' with K_V = '-0.89', which does not reproduce Table 2's V35 = '20.92(0.07)'; that would need K_V ≈ −0.48.
- p. 69 Table 4, SN 1995ap, JD 51.6
-0.89
- p. 64 Table 2, SN 1995ap, 1995 Nov 30
20.92(0.07)
- p. 69 Table 4, SN 1995ap, JD 51.6
21.40(0.08) ... -0.89
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I read Table 2 (p64) and Table 4 (p69). The same row's B reproduces Table 2: B35 21.65 + 0.20 = 21.85 against a printed 21.84. So does 1995ao at JD 51.6 (21.52+0.43=21.95; 21.12+0.58=21.70). For the 1995ap V value, 20.92 + 0.89 = 21.81, not 21.40, and no observed magnitude on that date plus 0.89 gives 21.40. The other 1995ap K_V values are −0.44 and −0.45.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label §1.2 cites "Wheeler & Harkness 1986", but the reference list has no such entry. The 1986 entry is "Wheeler, J. C., Harkness, R.P., Barkat, Z., & Swartz, D. 1986, PASP, 98, 1018" (should be cited as Wheeler et al. 1986), and Wheeler & Harkness is dated 1990.
- p. 3 Sec 1.2
Wheeler & Harkness 1986
- p. 33 References
Wheeler, J. C., Harkness, R.P., Barkat, Z., & Swartz, D. 1986
- p. 33 References
Wheeler, J. C., Harkness, R.P., Barkat, Z., & Swartz, D. 1986, PASP, 98, 1018
Judge's note: Checked the citation on p3 and the reference list on p33. The two-author Wheeler & Harkness entry is 1990, Rep. Prog. Phys., and the 1986 entry has four authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The text cites "Hansen, Nørgaard-Nielsen, & Jorgensen (1987)", but the reference list has "Hansen, L., Jorgensen, H. E., & Nørgaard-Nielsen, H. U., 1987, ESO Msngr, 47, 46". The second and third authors are in a different order.
- p. 3 §1.2
Hansen, Nørgaard-Nielsen, & Jorgensen (1987)
- p. 32 References
Hansen, L., Jorgensen, H. E., & Nørgaard-Nielsen, H. U., 1987
Judge's note: Both forms are visible in the crops from p3 and p32. Which order is correct cannot be checked from the files, but the citation and the reference entry disagree.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Reference "Filippenko, A.V. et al. 1992a, AJ, 384, 15" gives an AJ volume number that does not fit 1992 (the next entry, Filippenko 1992b, is AJ, 104).
- p. 31 References
Filippenko, A.V. et al. 1992a, AJ, 384, 15
- p. 4 §1.2
SN 1991T (Filippenko et al. 1992a
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the 1992 SN 1991T paper is ApJ 384, L15. Internal evidence: the adjacent 1992 AJ entry is volume 104, so volume 384 cannot be a 1992 AJ volume. The p31 crop confirms the printed text.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Figure 2 caption: "Local standard stars in the fields of SNe Ia. The stars are listed in Table 2"; the local standards are in Table 3 ("SN Ia Field Local Standard Stars").
- p. 35 Figure 2 caption
The stars are listed in Table 2
- p. 65 Table 3 title
Table 3. SN Ia Field Local Standard Stars
- p. 7 §2.2
is given in Table 3
- p. 7 Sect. 2.2
averaged over three photometric nights, is given in Table 3
Judge's note: Checked the p35 caption, the §2.2 text on p7 ('is given in Table 3') and the Table 3 title on p65. §2.2 (text line 279) says Table 2 lists the photometric observations. The caption is the odd one out.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Figure 8 caption: "A naive average (see §4.2) yields an estimate of 14.2 Gyr"; the naive combination is in §4.3 (Dynamical Age of the Universe), while §4.2 is Deceleration Parameter.
- p. 35 Figure 8 caption
A naive average (see §4.2)
- p. 16 §4.3 Dynamical Age
A naive combination of the
Judge's note: The section headings are 4.2 'Deceleration Parameter' and 4.3 'Dynamical Age of the Universe'. The p16 crop shows the naive combination giving 14.2 Gyr in §4.3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Figure 9 caption: "Comparing these lines with the error ellipses in Figures 5 and 7"; Figure 5 is the Δm15(B) Hubble diagram, and the confidence contours are Figures 6 and 7, as §4.3 states.
- p. 35 Figure 9 caption
the error ellipses in Figures 5 and 7
- p. 17 Sec 4.3
comparing Figure 9 to Figures 6 and 7
- p. 35 Figure 9 caption
error ellipses in Figures 5 and 7
- p. 35
error ellipses in Figures 5 and 7 reveals
Judge's note: The p35 captions show that Fig 5 is a Hubble diagram and Figs 6/7 are the joint confidence intervals. The p17 text says 'comparing Figure 9 to Figures 6 and 7'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Reference "Garnavich, P., et al. 1996c, IAUC 6861" is dated 1996, but §5.1 uses IAUC 6861 for SN 1998ai, a 1998 supernova.
- p. 31 References
Garnavich, P., et al. 1996c, IAUC 6861
- p. 20 §5.1
SN 1998ai (z = 0.49; IAUC 6861)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: supernova designations carry the discovery year, and IAU Circular numbers increase with time. Within the file, the other Garnavich 1996 entries are IAUC 6332 and 6358, far below 6861, and p20 cites IAUC 6861 for SN 1998ai. The year 1996c is therefore inconsistent with the SN 1998ai designation.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label §5.5 cites "Holz & Wald (1997)" but the reference list gives "Holz, D. E., & Wald, R. M. 1998, submitted (astro-ph/9708036)"; in addition, the Appendix cites "(Leibundgut 1989)", which has no reference-list entry.
- p. 24 Sec 5.5
Holz & Wald (1997)
- p. 32 References
Holz, D. E., & Wald, R. M. 1998, submitted
- p. 32 References
Holz, D. E., & Wald, R. M. 1998, submitted (astro-ph/9708036)
- p. 29 Appendix
(Leibundgut 1989)
Judge's note: Checked the p24 crop (Holz & Wald (1997)) and the p32 reference list (1998 entry); these are the same work, so the years disagree. A grep of the reference list finds only Leibundgut et al. 1993 and Tammann & Leibundgut 1990, so the p29 citation 'Leibundgut 1989' has no matching entry. The Hatano 1998/1997 and IAUC 6861 sub-points are judged separately in C022 and C024.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Appendix A says the MLCS vectors "are determined from the training set of SNe Ia listed in Table A"; the paper has no Table A, and the training set is Table 10 (cited as such in the same appendix).
- p. 28 Appendix A
training set of SNe Ia listed in Table A
- p. 28 Appendix
(see Table 10) of B and V light curves
- p. 28 Appendix
we employ a set (see Table 10)
- p. 28
training set of SNe Ia listed in Table A.
Judge's note: The p28 page image shows 'Table A' in the paragraph after eq. A4, while the same page says 'we employ a set (see Table 10)', and p29 says 'the SNe Ia of Table 10'. A grep finds no other mention of a Table A.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Appendix cites "Hatano, Branch, & Deaton (1998) show that two-thirds of SNe Ia..." but the same paragraph cites the work as 1997 twice, and the only reference entry is "Hatano, K., Branch, D., & Deaton, J., 1997, astro-ph/9711311".
- p. 29 Appendix
Branch, & Deaton (1998) show that two-thirds
- p. 29 Appendix
Hatano, Branch, & Deaton (1998) show that two-thirds
- p. 32 References
Hatano, K., Branch, D., & Deaton, J., 1997, astro-ph/9711311
- p. 29
Branch, & Deaton (1998) show that two-thirds of SNe Ia
Judge's note: Checked the p29 crop and the p32 reference crop. No 1998 Hatano entry exists in the reference list.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
20 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording §3.2 describes the 27 nearby SNe Ia as "(0.01 < z < 0.13...)", but Table 10 lists SN 1995D with log cz = 3.398, which is cz ≈ 2500 km/s, z ≈ 0.0083.
- p. 10 Sec 3.2
27 SNe Ia in the nearby Hubble flow (0.01 < z
- p. 72 Table 10, 1995D row
3.398
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 10 is on p72 and the text on p10. The Appendix uses "cz ≥ 2500 km s−1" for the same set, which fits 1995D. So the lower bound stated in §3.2 does not match the table. 1995D is the only entry below cz = 2998 km/s (log 3.477). The authors should say which bound is meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording §4.1 describes the nine Riess et al. snapshot SNe Ia "with 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 0.83" (Tables 7 and 9), but Table 9 lists SN 1994U (log cz 3.111, z ≈ 0.0043) and SN 1997bp (log cz 3.363, z ≈ 0.0077).
- p. 14 Sec 4.1, snapshot paragraph
snapshot method with 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 0.83
- p. 71 Table 9, 1994U row
3.111
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 9 is on p71 (printed page 12). Its 7 entries plus the two asterisked Table 7 entries (1997I, 1997ap) make up the nine. Two of them lie below z = 0.01 as tabulated. A different velocity frame is not stated anywhere. The authors should confirm the lower bound.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording §5.1: "A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows no significant difference in the distributions of the low and high-redshift samples, but the sample is too small to be statistically significant". This wording confuses a null result with low power, and no statistic or P value is given.
- p. 20 Sec. 5.1
shows no significant difference in the distributions of the low and high-redshift samples, but the sample is too small to be statistically significant
Judge's note: Read on the p20 crop. The intended meaning (the test has low power) is clear enough, so this is a minor ambiguity in wording, not a factual error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Conclusion 1 says "luminosity distances to well-observed SNe with 0.16 ≤ z ≤ 0.97", but the well-observed light-curve sample (Tables 5/6) spans z = 0.30 (1996J) to 0.97 (1997ck); z = 0.16 is reached only by the snapshot sample.
- p. 27 §6 Conclusions, item 1
well-observed SNe with 0.16 ≤ z ≤ 0.97
- p. 70 Table 5
1996J 0.30
- p. 27 Conclusions item 5
do not depend on inclusion of SN 1997ck (z=0.97)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 5/6 (p70) z values run from 0.30 to 0.97. §4.1 separates 'nine well-observed SNe Ia' from the 'six sparsely observed' (snapshot) SNe, and §4.4 says the snapshot set includes SNe with z ≥ 0.16. The 0.25/0.28 mag excess in §5 refers to the 'well-observed SNe'. The lower bound 0.16 therefore does not match the sample the conclusion names. Whether the 0.97 upper bound (SN 1997ck) belongs in the range is less clear: Figs 4/5 plot 1997ck, while the significance levels exclude it. Only the authors can say which range is intended.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 3 ('SN Ia Field Local Standard Stars') has no SN 1996U block, although the Figure 2 caption gives the 96U field ('96U=4.9′') and Tables 2 and 4 list 1996U photometry.
- p. 35 Figure 2 caption
96U=4.9′
- p. 66 Table 3 (continued)
SN 1996R ... (next block SN 1996T)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I read all three Table 3 pages (pp. 65–67). The blocks are 1996E, H, I (p65), 1996J, K, R (p66) and 1996T, 1995ao, 1995ap (p67). There is no 1996U block. 1996U photometry is in Table 2 (p64) and Table 4 (p69), and the Figure 2 caption on p35 lists the 96U field. The paper gives no reason for leaving it out, so only the authors can say whether it was dropped by accident. Separately, the Figure 2 caption says the stars 'are listed in Table 2', but the local standards are in Table 3.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 8, MLCS(9) row, p(q0≤0) column: '99.4%(2.4σ)' does not follow the percentage-to-σ conversion used in the other rows (99.5%(2.8σ), 99.3%(2.7σ)).
- p. 51 Table 8, MLCS(9) row, p(q0≤0)
99.4%(2.4σ)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I read the upright Table 8 (p51). The MLCS(9) row reads 99.6%(2.9σ) for p(ΩΛ≥0) and 99.4%(2.4σ) for p(q0≤0). Every other entry follows a two-sided Gaussian conversion (99.5→2.8, 99.3→2.7, 99.7→3.0). On that convention 99.4% is about 2.75σ, and a one-sided reading gives about 2.5σ, so 2.4σ cannot be reached either way. The table does not show whether the percentage or the σ value is the misprint. The inverse-normal conversion cannot be written using only + − * /, so the arithmetic list is empty.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The team name is capitalised two ways: "High-Z Supernova Search Team" (abstract, p1; also §1, §1.1) and "High-z Supernova Search Team" (§5.8, p26).
- p. 1 Abstract
High-Z Supernova Search Team
- p. 26 §5.8
High-z Supernova Search Team
Judge's note: Both forms are visible in the page crops. This is a house-style inconsistency only, and either form could be legitimate.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo §5.1: "Presently, our sample is to small to make such a test meaningful" should read "too small". The Table 10 footnote also has "Light curves resticted to B and V" for "restricted".
- p. 19 Sec 5.1
Presently, our sample is to small
- p. 19 §5.1
our sample is to small to make such a test meaningful
- p. 19 §5.1, end of 4th paragraph
Presently, our sample is to small to make such a test meaningful.
- p. 72 Table 10 footnote
Light curves resticted to B and V
Judge's note: "to small" is visible in the p19 crop and "resticted" in the p72 Table 10 footnote. Both are cosmetic misspellings. The "we does" and "additon" typos are judged under C012 and C013.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo §5.1: "(which we does fit the luminosity light curve shape relations" is ungrammatical and presumably should read "which does fit".
- p. 20 Sec 5.1
(which we does fit the luminosity light curve shape relations
- p. 20 §5.1, first paragraph
which we does fit the luminosity light curve shape relations
- p. 20
(which we does fit the luminosity light curve shape relations;
Judge's note: Visible on the p20 page image, so it is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo §5.1: "In additon, a time sequence of spectra" is a misspelling of "addition".
- p. 20 Sec 5.1
additon
- p. 20 §5.1
In additon, a time sequence
- p. 20 Sec. 5.1
In additon, a time sequence of spectra
- p. 20
In additon, a time sequence of spectra of SN Ia 1997ex
Judge's note: Visible in the p20 crop.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo An empty leftover table, 'Table 8. Cosmological Results: See Tables8.tex', with column headers only (including a repeated 'ΩM'), is printed on p71 in addition to the real Table 8 on p51.
- p. 71 Table 8 stub
Table 8. Cosmological Results: See Tables8.tex
- p. 21 §5.2 Extinction
as evidenced by the χ2ν (Table 8)
- p. 24 §5.6
(see Figures 6, 7, and 8 and Table 8)
Judge's note: I read p71 and the upright p51. The p71 stub has headers and no rows. The full Table 8 on p51 does contain the χ²ν, confidence-level and q0 values that the text cites (§5.2, §5.6), so the citations still have a target and nothing is missing. The defect is a duplicated, empty typesetting leftover, not missing content as reviewer note 2 claims.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo §5.7 list of spectral features lacks separating commas: "broad Si II absorption near 6150 Å Ca II (H&K) absorption near 3800 Å a S II absorption doublet near 5300 Å and 5500 Å and numerous..."
- p. 25 §5.7, first paragraph
near 6150 Å Ca II (H&K) absorption near 3800 Å a S II absorption doublet
Judge's note: The p25 page image shows no comma after each 'Å'. Commas elsewhere on the same page are clearly visible at this resolution, so the missing ones are not a rendering artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo End of §5.8 is ungrammatical: "may provide the first clues to the location of where that intersection."
- p. 26 §5.8, end
the first clues to the location of where that intersection.
- p. 26
the first clues to the location of where that intersection
Judge's note: The p26 crop shows the sentence exactly as quoted. The redundant 'of where' (or a missing verb) makes it ungrammatical.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The same MLCS web location is printed two ways: "http://oir-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oirResearch/supernova" (p28) and "http://oir-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/supernova" (p29).
- p. 28 Appendix
http://oir-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oirResearch/supernova
- p. 29 Appendix
http://oir-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/supernova
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Both page images show the two different paths. At least one of them must be mistyped, and only the authors know which is the valid URL.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Appendix: "it is important to continue testing that the a posterior extinction distribution matches the expected one" — should be "a posteriori".
- p. 29 last line
the a posterior
Judge's note: The p29 crop shows the italic 'a posterior' at the end of the page, and p30 continues with 'extinction distribution'. The paragraph uses 'a priori' correctly elsewhere.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference "Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, L105, 413" has volume and page swapped relative to the list's Journal, volume, page format (ApJ, 413, L105).
- p. 33 References
Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, L105, 413
Judge's note: The p33 crop confirms the printed order. Every other entry uses Journal, volume, page. The information is all present, only in the wrong order.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Figure 1 caption: "The spectra the three objects from Garnavich et al. (1998) are also displayed." is missing "of".
- p. 35 Figure 1 caption
The spectra the three objects from
- p. 35 Figure 1 caption
The spectra the three objects from Garnavich et al. (1998) are also displayed.
Judge's note: The p35 page image shows the wording as quoted.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The decline-rate parameter is printed 'ΔM15(B)' (capital M) in the Table 6 header and the Table 8 row labels ('ΔM15+Snap.(15)'), but 'Δm15(B)' in the text and the Figure 5 caption.
- p. 71 Table 6 column header
ΔM15(B)
- p. 35 Figure 5 caption
∆m15(B) SN Ia Hubble diagram
Judge's note: Table 6 is on p70, not p71 as cited. Its column header reads ΔM15(B). The Table 8 row labels on p51 also use ΔM15. The Figure 5 caption (p35) and §5.1 use Δm15(B). This is a notation inconsistency only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In Table 2 (SN 1996K, JD 165.6 and 168.5) the telescope is given as 'CTIO 1.m', with the aperture digit missing.
- p. 63 Table 2, SN 1996K, JD 165.6 and 168.5
CTIO 1.m
Judge's note: The p63 image shows 'CTIO 1.m' on both rows. Everywhere else the table uses 'CTIO 1.5m' or 'CTIO 4m'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The Table 10 footnote reads 'Light curves resticted to B and V data within 40 days of B maximum'; 'resticted' should be 'restricted'.
- p. 72 Table 10 footnote
resticted
- p. 72 Table 10 footnote †
Light curves resticted to B and V data
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the crop from p72.
Second check: none (judge only)