Paper detail

Extending BEAMS to incorporate correlated systematic uncertainties

New supernova surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey, Pan-STARRS and the LSST will produce an unprecedented number of photometric supernova candidates, most with no spectroscopic data. Avoiding biases in cosmological parameters due to the resulting inevitable contamination from non-Ia supernovae can be achieved with the BEAMS formalism, allowing for fully photometric supernova cosmology studies. Here we extend BEAMS to deal with the case in which the supernovae are correlated by systematic uncertainties. The analytical form of the full BEAMS posterior requires evaluating 2^N terms, where N is the number of supernova candidates. This `exponential catastrophe' is computationally unfeasible even for N of order 100. We circumvent the exponential catastrophe by marginalising numerically instead of analytically over the possible supernova types: we augment the cosmological parameters with nuisance parameters describing the covariance matrix and the types of all the supernovae, τ_i, that we include in our MCMC analysis. We show that this method deals well even with large, unknown systematic uncertainties without a major increase in computational time, whereas ignoring the correlations can lead to significant biases and incorrect credible contours. We then compare the numerical marginalisation technique with a perturbative expansion of the posterior based on the insight that future surveys will have exquisite light curves and hence the probability that a given candidate is a Type Ia will be close to unity or zero, for most objects. Although this perturbative approach changes computation of the posterior from a 2^N problem into an N^2 or N^3 one, we show that it leads to biases in general through a small number of misclassifications, implying that numerical marginalisation is superior.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors2 topics

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.