arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1611.03087astro-ph.CO
收藏

用近似贝叶斯计算从Ia型超新星获得宇宙学约束的新方法

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

Elise Jennings, Rachel Wolf, Masao Sako

摘要:

宇宙学参数估计技术,强大的帐户系统测量的不确定性将是至关重要的下一代宇宙学调查。我们提出了一种新的分析方法,superABC,从Ia型超新星(SN Ia)的光变曲线使用近似贝叶斯计算(ABC)获得宇宙学约束,没有任何可能性的假设。ABC方法通过使用数据的正向模型模拟来工作,其中系统不确定性可以被模拟和边缘化。这里介绍的方法的一个关键特征是使用两个不同的度量,“特里普”和“光曲线”度量,这使我们能够比较模拟数据的观测数据集。Tripp度量将模型的参数作为输入,使用SALT-II方法拟合每个光曲线,而光曲线度量直接使用测量的通量而无需模型拟合。我们将superABC采样器应用到对应于暗能量巡天超新星计划第一季的$\sim$ 1000 SNe模拟数据集。改变$Ω_m, w_0, α$和$β$以及幅度偏移参数,在没有系统学的情况下,我们使用Tripp度量获得$Δ(w_0) = w_0^{\rm true} - w_0^{\rm best \, fit} = -0.036\pm0.109$($\sim11$ % 1 $σ$不确定性),使用光曲线度量获得$Δ(w_0) = -0.055\pm0.068$($\sim7$ % 1 $σ$不确定性)。在四个通带中包括1%的校准不确定度,再增加4个参数,我们使用Tripp度量获得$Δ(w_0) = -0.062\pm0.132$($\sim14$ % 1 $σ$不确定度)。总的来说,我们发现一个$17$ %增加的不确定性$w_0$与系统相比,没有。我们将其与MCMC方法进行对比,其中系统性影响大致包括在内。我们发现,MCMC方法稍微低估了这个模拟数据集的校准不确定性的影响。

英文摘要:

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.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑