Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

• p. 1 Abstract

  at redshifts between 0.18 and 0.83

• p. 18 Table 1, SN 1997I, column z

  0.172

• p. 18 Table 1, SN 1997I

  1997I

• p. 18 Table 1, SN 1997I

  1997I 0.172

Judge's note: Checked the abstract crop, the Fig. 3 caption crop and the Table 1 page image. SN 1997I is printed as 0.172 with no exclusion note, so it is one of the 42; 0.172 rounds to 0.17, not 0.18. The upper bound 0.830 (1997ap) matches. Section 4.1.1 calls the pair "the two SNe Ia at z ~ 0.18", so the authors are quoting the lower bound loosely. A small imprecision, not a substantive error.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 28 Figure 5 caption, panel (d)

  (d) The 68% confidence region for Fit E of the 53 supernovae

• p. 27 Figure 5, panel (d)

  Bias with One-Sided De-reddening Method

• p. 6 Section 4.1.3

  as the dashed contour in Figure 5(d)

Judge's note: Opened the crop and the full page 27. Panel (d) has an inner and a larger outer dotted contour around the Fit C shading, both belonging to the E label. The caption's default is 68% and 90% "unless otherwise indicated", and (d) is the one panel where it indicates 68% only, yet two contours are drawn (presumably 68% and 90%). The text also calls the line dashed where it is dotted. The figure is fine; the caption and text describe it loosely.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 2 Section 2, right column

  (SN 1997ap and other 1998 supernovae have also been followed with HST photometry.)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Crop of page 2 confirms the printed wording. By its designation 1997ap is not a 1998 supernova, so either "other" or the year is off (possible intended reading: "SN 1997ap and other, 1998, supernovae"). Only the authors can say which was meant. Wording only; no data affected.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 3 Section 2, end of first full paragraph

  interpretation of these results.).

• p. 3

  does affect the interpretation of these results.).

Judge's note: Page 3 image, left column, end of the K-correction paragraph, shows "results.)." as printed. Not an extraction artefact.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 3 Section 2

  light-curve width-luminosity relation

• p. 3 Section 2

  restframe days past maximum light

• p. 5 Section 4.1.1

  rest-frame B and V photometry

Judge's note: Page 3 image shows "light-curve width-luminosity relation" and "light-curve widths" mid-line next to many instances of "lightcurve". Page 5 image shows "we fit the rest-frame B and V photometry" mid-line in the same sentence as "restframe color excess". The Fig. 6 caption also mixes "restframe" and "rest-frame". The text has 74 lines with "lightcurve" and 24 with "restframe". Style consistency only.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 8 Section 4.3, second paragraph

  Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) formula

• p. 8 Section 4.3, second paragraph

  the Friedman-Robertson-Walker fit is already very close

• p. 3 Section 3, first line

  Friedman-Robertson-Walker magnitude-

• p. 31 Figure 8 caption

  Friedman-Robertson-Walker model of Fit C

Judge's note: Checked on the page 8 image (both spellings within one paragraph), crop C018-c (page 3, one n) and crop C018-d (Fig. 8 caption, one n twice). The inconsistency is internal to the PDF; standardise on 'Friedmann'.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 4 Section 3, left column, last paragraph

  for the low-redshift Calan-

• p. 19 Table 2 title

  CALÁN TOLOLO SNE IA DATA

• p. 4 Section 3

  Calan-Tololo supernovae

• p. 22 Fig. 1 legend

  Calan/Tololo

Judge's note: Page 4 crop shows "Calan-" / "Tololo" split across a line break with no accent; a slash-joined name would not pick up a hyphen. Table 2 crop shows "Calán Tololo" with no separator. The Fig. 1 legend shows "Calan/Tololo" without the accent, which may be a font limit in the figure. The abstract crop shows the standard form "Calán/Tololo". Cosmetic.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 5 Section 4.1.2, second paragraph

  that is intentional biased to be bluer

• p. 5

  that is intentional biased to be bluer than the low-redshift sample.

• p. 5 Section 4.1.2, Fit H paragraph

  that is intentional biased to be bluer than the low-redshift sample

• p. 5

  that is intentional biased to be bluer than

Judge's note: Checked the crop of p.5, right column. The adjective 'intentional' is printed where the adverb 'intentionally' is needed.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 5 Section 4.1.2, second paragraph

  is less than 5%; This subset is thus

Judge's note: Page 5 image, right column, shows "5%; This subset" as printed. Either the semicolon should be a full stop or "This" should be lower case.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 6 Section 4.1.3, right column

  changes so little from Case C

Judge's note: Page 6 image, right column, shows "from Case C" as printed, two lines after "compared to Fit C". "Case C" is not defined anywhere. Terminology slip with an evident fix.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 6 Section 4.1.3, right column

  from Case C, even with the possible bias

Judge's note: Crop C016-a shows 'compared to Fit C' two lines above 'from Case C'. A text search finds no other 'Case X' label for a fit. Meaning is clear; label inconsistency only.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 7 Section 4.2, right column

  of the the classical Malmquist bias formula, 0.04 mag

• p. 7

  direct application of the the classical Malmquist bias formula,

• p. 7 Section 4.2, right column

  direct application of the the classical Malmquist bias formula

• p. 7 Sec 4.2, left column

  the classical Malmquist bias should be 0.03 mag

Judge's note: Checked the full page 7 image. 'the the' appears on a single line in the right column, so it is a real duplicated word. Reviewer note 4 calls 0.03 vs 0.04 mag a contradiction; that is not confirmed (see C018). The left-column 0.03 mag is for the high-redshift flux-limited survey with a counts slope of 0.4. The right column says low-redshift number counts are steeper (Maddox et al. 1990), so the low-z classical bias is expected to be nearer 0.04 mag. These are different quantities.

Second check: another model agreed, code check

• p. 8 Section 4.4, right column

  as shown by the error bars of Figures 2.

Judge's note: Page 8 image, right column, shows 'of Figures 2.' Either 'Figure 2' or 'Figures 1 and 2' was intended (both show the error bars); elsewhere the paper writes 'Figure 2(a)', 'Figure 2(b)'.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 11 Section 6, right column, top

  sults of such studies with small statistics has not shown any dif-

• p. 11

  results of such studies with small statistics has not shown any difference

• p. 11 Section 6 closing paragraphs

  the results of such studies with small statistics has not shown any difference

Judge's note: Page 11 image, right column top, shows 'the results of such studies with small statistics has not shown any difference'. Plural subject 'results' with singular verb.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 11

  analysis of 16 high-redshift supernovae by Riess et al. (1998) also show

• p. 11 Section 6.1

  The more recent analysis of 16 high-redshift supernovae by Riess et al. (1998) also show a very similar

Judge's note: Page 11 image, right column bottom, shows the sentence as quoted. The subject is the singular 'analysis'.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 13 Acknowledgements

  National Energy Research Science Computing Center (NERSC)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the official name of NERSC is 'National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center'. The page 13 image shows 'National Energy Research Science Computing Center (NERSC)' as quoted. Nothing in the PDF gives the name in another form, so the authors should confirm.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 13 Acknowledgements

  Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF000098

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the standard DOE contract number for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is DE-AC03-76SF00098. The page 13 image shows 'DE-AC03-76SF000098' with six digits after 'SF'. This cannot be checked from the PDF; the authors should confirm.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 13 Acknowledgements

  grant No. ADT-88909616

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: NSF astronomy grants use the prefix 'AST' and the Center for Particle Astrophysics grant is believed to be AST-8809616. The page 13 image shows 'No. ADT-88909616', and two lines below the other NSF grant is printed as 'AST-9417213' (prefix plus seven digits), which supports a typo in both prefix and digit count. The correct number can only be confirmed by the authors.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 14 Appendix, paragraph after Eq. A4

  relative weighting). the true distribution P(A), and the choice

• p. 14

  relative weighting). the true distribution P(A)

• p. 14 Appendix, paragraph after Eq. A4

  (e.g., color uncertainty, relative weighting). the true distribution P(A), and the choice of prior

Judge's note: Page 14 image shows 'relative weighting). the true distribution P(A), and the choice of prior' as printed. The sentence is a three-item list ('details of the dataset (...), the true distribution, and the choice of prior'), so the period should be a comma. Not an extraction artefact.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 14 Appendix, paragraph after Eq. A4

  instead of the mode in equation A-3

• p. 14 Appendix, paragraph after Eq. A4

  of Equation A2 is used

Judge's note: Page 14 image shows both forms in the paragraph after Eq. A4 and the label '(A3)' on the mode equation; page 13 shows '(A2)'. The targets are correct (A3 is the mode equation, A2 the one-sided prior); only the hyphenation and capitalisation differ.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 15 Reference list

  In IAU Symposium 183, pages (astro–ph/9801080)

• p. 16 References, Kayser et al.

  Kayser, R., Helbig, P., & Schramm T. 1996

• p. 16 References, Leibundgut 1996b

  Leibundgut B. et al. 1996b

Judge's note: Read pages 15 and 16 as images. The word "pages" is followed directly by the parenthesis with no page numbers. "Schramm T." and "Leibundgut B. et al." lack the comma used in every other entry (compare "Leibundgut, B., et al. 1996a" one line above). Cosmetic only. The Kennicut spelling is handled in C032.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 15

  Mould, J. R., Kennicut, R. C., & Madore

• p. 15 References, Freedman et al.

  Kennicut, R. C.

• p. 15 References, Gratton et al.

  Clementina, G.

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the authors' names are spelled Kennicutt and Clementini. The page image of p15 does print "Kennicut" and "Clementina" as quoted. Nothing in the paper itself gives the other spelling, so the files cannot settle it.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 29 Figure 6 caption

  Schlegel et. al. 1998

• p. 29

  values from Schlegel et. al. 1998.

Judge's note: Page image 29: the caption reads "values from Schlegel et. al. 1998" in italics with a period after "et". Elsewhere the paper writes "et al." or names all three authors. Cosmetic.

Second check: another model agreed