Paper detail

A new approach for obtaining cosmological constraints from Type Ia Supernovae using Approximate Bayesian Computation

Cosmological parameter estimation techniques that robustly account for systematic measurement uncertainties will be crucial for the next generation of cosmological surveys. We present a new analysis method, superABC, for obtaining cosmological constraints from Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) light curves using Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) without any likelihood assumptions. The ABC method works by using a forward model simulation of the data where systematic uncertainties can be simulated and marginalized over. A key feature of the method presented here is the use of two distinct metrics, the `Tripp' and `Light Curve' metrics, which allow us to compare the simulated data to the observed data set. The Tripp metric takes as input the parameters of models fit to each light curve with the SALT-II method, whereas the Light Curve metric uses the measured fluxes directly without model fitting. We apply the superABC sampler to a simulated data set of $\sim$1000 SNe corresponding to the first season of the Dark Energy Survey Supernova Program. Varying $Ω_m, w_0, α$ and $β$ and a magnitude offset parameter, with no systematics we obtain $Δ(w_0) = w_0^{\rm true} - w_0^{\rm best \, fit} = -0.036\pm0.109$ (a $\sim11$% 1$σ$ uncertainty) using the Tripp metric and $Δ(w_0) = -0.055\pm0.068$ (a $\sim7$% 1$σ$ uncertainty) using the Light Curve metric. Including 1% calibration uncertainties in four passbands, adding 4 more parameters, we obtain $Δ(w_0) = -0.062\pm0.132$ (a $\sim14$% 1$σ$ uncertainty) using the Tripp metric. Overall we find a $17$% increase in the uncertainty on $w_0$ with systematics compared to without. We contrast this with a MCMC approach where systematic effects are approximately included. We find that the MCMC method slightly underestimates the impact of calibration uncertainties for this simulated data set.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.