1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

4: %\documentclass[aaspp4]{aastex}

5: %\documentclass{aastex}

6: %\documentclass[]{emulateapj}

7: \documentclass[onecolumn]{emulateapj}

8: 

9: %!TEX TS-program=latex

10: \usepackage{amsmath}

11: %\usepackage{pdfsync}

12: \def\snp{SN\,II-P} 

13: \def\snep{SNe\,II-P} 

14: \def\VmI{\hbox{$V\!-\!I$}} 

15: \def\fe{\ion{Fe}{2}}

16: 

17: \newcommand{\bvri}{\protect\hbox{$BV\!RI$} }

18: 

19: \citestyle{aa}

20: 

21: \begin{document}

22: 

23: %\slugcomment{ApJ accepted}

24: %\submitted{Draft \today} 

25: %\submitted{ApJ -- submitted October 27, 2008, accepted December 2, 2008} 

26: \submitted{ApJ accepted December 2, 2008} 

27: 

28: \title {Improved Standardization of Type II-P Supernovae: Application to 

29: an Expanded Sample}

30: \shorttitle{Improved Standardization of SNe\,II-P}

31: \shortauthors{Poznanski et al.}

32: 

33: \author{Dovi Poznanski\altaffilmark{1},

34: Nathaniel Butler\altaffilmark{1,2}, 

35: Alexei V.\ Filippenko\altaffilmark{1},

36: Mohan Ganeshalingam\altaffilmark{1},

37: Weidong Li\altaffilmark{1},

38: Joshua S.\ Bloom\altaffilmark{1,3}, 

39: Ryan Chornock\altaffilmark{1}, 

40: Ryan J. Foley\altaffilmark{1,4,5}, 

41: Peter E. Nugent\altaffilmark{6}, 

42: Jeffrey M.\ Silverman\altaffilmark{1},

43: S. Bradley Cenko\altaffilmark{1},

44: Elinor L. Gates\altaffilmark{7},

45: Douglas C. Leonard\altaffilmark{8}, 

46: Adam A. Miller\altaffilmark{1}, 

47: Maryam Modjaz\altaffilmark{1}, 

48: Frank J. D. Serduke\altaffilmark{1}, 

49: Nathan Smith\altaffilmark{1}, 

50: Brandon J. Swift\altaffilmark{9}, and

51: Diane S. Wong\altaffilmark{1}}

52: 

53: 

54: \email{dovi@berkeley.edu}

55: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA

56:  94720-3411.}%; dovi@berkeley.edu.}

57: \altaffiltext{2}{GLAST Fellow.}

58: \altaffiltext{3}{Sloan Research Fellow.}

59: \altaffiltext{4}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden 

60: Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.}

61: \altaffiltext{5}{Clay Fellow.}

62: \altaffiltext{6}{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, 

63: Berkeley, CA 94720.}

64: \altaffiltext{7}{Lick Observatory, PO Box 85, Mount Hamilton, CA 95140.}

65: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy, San Diego State University, Mail 

66: Code 1221, San Diego, CA 92182-1221.}

67: \altaffiltext{9}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.}

68: 

69: \begin{abstract}

70: 	In the epoch of precise and accurate cosmology,

71: 	cross-confirmation using a variety of cosmographic methods is

72: 	paramount to circumvent systematic uncertainties. Owing to 

73:         progenitor histories and

74: 	explosion physics differing from those of Type Ia SNe (SNe\,Ia), 

75: 	Type II-plateau supernovae (\snep) are unlikely to be affected 

76: 	by evolution in the same way. 

77: 	Based on a new analysis of 17 \snep, 

78: 	and on an improved methodology, we find that \snep\ are good 

79: 	standardizable candles, almost comparable to SNe\,Ia. 

80: 	We derive a tight Hubble diagram with a dispersion of 10\% in distance, 

81: 	using the simple correlation between luminosity and photospheric 

82:         velocity introduced by

83: 	\citet{hamuy02}. We show that the descendent method of

84: 	\citet{nugent06} can be further simplified and that the correction for

85: 	 dust extinction has low statistical impact.

86: 	We find that our SN sample favors, on average, a very steep dust law with

87: 	total to selective extinction $R_V<2$. Such an extinction law has

88: 	been recently inferred for many SNe\,Ia.  

89: 	Our results indicate that a distance measurement can be obtained 

90: 	with a single spectrum of a \snp\ during the plateau phase combined with sparse

91: 	photometric measurements.

92: 

93: \end{abstract}

94: 

95: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- distance scale --- dust, extinction --- 

96: supernovae: general}

97: 

98: \section{Introduction}

99: 

100: Compelling evidence for cosmic acceleration comes from distance

101: measurements to Type Ia supernovae \citep[SNe\,Ia; e.g.,][see

102: \citealt{filippenko05} for a review of earlier studies]

103: {astier06,wood-vasey07,riess07,kowalski08}. Yet even with unlimited

104: observational resources to improve statistical uncertainty, SN\,Ia

105: cosmology ultimately faces systematic uncertainties stemming from an

106: incomplete physical model of the phenomena.  Indeed, since the

107: physical conditions which give rise to the progenitors of the events

108: are extremely difficult to discern, with no real consensus having been

109: reached thus far, determining the nature of the evolution of SNe\,Ia

110: at high redshift remains a crucial challenge for precise and accurate

111: measurements of the fundamental cosmological parameters. While several

112: mechanisms have been devised to measure, test, and constrain SN\,Ia

113: systematics \citep[e.g.,][]{ellis08,foley08}, the possibility of

114: source redshift evolution warrants a continued exploration of

115: additional, complementary cosmographic methods.

116: 

117: A simple observation provides a compelling foundation for the use of

118: Type II-plateau supernovae (\snep) as standardizable candles: the

119: progenitors of several \snep\ have now been uncovered

120: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{li07,smartt08}, and all are

121: found to be red supergiants with somewhat similar initial stellar

122: masses (typically 8--16~M$_\odot$).  Consequently, the environments

123: and pre-SN evolution of such objects are reasonably tractable. Having

124: undergone core collapse and envelope ejection, these red supergiants

125: become SNe observationally defined by the presence of hydrogen in the

126: spectra and a ``plateau'' phase in their light curves

127: \citep[e.g.,][see \citealt{filippenko97} for a

128: review]{barbon79}. SNe\,II-P have been detected to redshift $z \approx

129: 0.5$, and any evolutionary trends are likely to differ from those of

130: SNe\,Ia.

131: 

132: As in the case of SNe\,Ia, the intrinsic inhomogeneity in \snp\ peak

133: luminosity, and that produced by extrinsic factors such as dust, can

134: be calibrated.  There are two different approaches to determining

135: distance: the theory-based method, and the empirical

136: standardized-candle method.  The theoretical approach branches into

137: two: (1) the expanding photosphere method (EPM;

138: \citealt{kirshner75,eastman96}), a historical descendent of the

139: Baade-Wesselink method for variable stars \citep{baade26}, and (2) the

140: more modern ``synthetic spectral atmosphere fitting'' method

141: \citep[e.g.,][]{baron04,dessart06}.  Both techniques require the

142: comparison of high signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) photometry and spectra

143: of a given object to model atmospheres; for the second method,

144: synthesized spectra are computed for each SN in

145: detail. Distances based on improved versions of the theoretical

146: modeling for a handful of well-observed SNe\,II-P have been shown to

147: be precise to 10\%

148: \citep[e.g.,][]{leonard03,hamuy05,baron04,dessart06,dessart08}, not

149: greatly inferior to the best precision achievable with SNe\,Ia

150: \citep[7\%;][]{astier06}.  The requirement of high S/N observations,

151: however, limits the efficacy of this approach for events at larger

152: distances.

153: 

154: The standardized candle method first suggested by \citeauthor{hamuy02}

155: (\citeyear{hamuy02}; hereafter HP02) provides an independent empirical

156: way to achieve distances to \snep, and it is strongly anchored in

157: simple physics. In more luminous SNe, the H-recombination front is

158: maintained at higher velocities; the photosphere is farther out in

159: radius. When a \snp\ is on the plateau phase of its light curve (which

160: lasts for around 100 rest-frame days), there is a strong correlation

161: between the velocity of the weak \fe\ lines near $5000$\,\AA\ -- that

162: trace the photospheric velocity -- and the luminosity on the

163: plateau. Extinction corrections are based on a variety of different

164: methods. This empirical correlation was further studied by

165: \citeauthor{hamuy05} (\citeyear{hamuy05}; hereafter H05); application

166: to 24 SNe\,II-P in the Hubble flow yields a Hubble diagram in the $I$

167: band with a scatter of 15\% in distance.

168: 

169: \citeauthor{nugent06} (\citeyear{nugent06}; hereafter N06) modified

170: this technique by simultaneously combining both the extinction

171: correction (using the rest-frame $V-I$ color on the plateau) and the

172: \fe\ velocity correction to arrive at a simple correlation between

173: these parameters and luminosity. Given the smaller quantity of the

174: data required, the N06 method, or a variant thereof, is probably the

175: only framework that could be followed cost-effectively at high

176: redshifts.

177: 

178: The number of \snep\ for which distances have been derived, using any

179: available method, is $\sim$20. The paucity of such objects, and the

180: intractable biases that emerge from the way the sample was

181: constructed, warrants an analysis of more SNe, and push for improved

182: and better-tested correlations that will allow one to achieve the

183: precision and control of systematics that could make these SNe

184: competitive tools for precision cosmology.

185: 

186: In this work, we add 17 new objects to the current sample of low-$z$

187: \snep, almost doubling the size, and reanalyze 3 previously published

188: events.  We discuss the full sample construction in

189: \S\ref{s:sample}. In \S\ref{s:method} we present and modify the N06

190: fitting method. We discuss in \S\ref{s:results} the sample culling,

191: derive a new Hubble diagram, and find that the scatter is $\sim$10\%

192: in distance; we also consider the robustness and possible biases in

193: the method, and compare distances derived for SNe that occurred in the

194: same host galaxy, checking for internal consistency. Our conclusions

195: are summarized in \S\ref{s:conclude}.

196: 

197: \section{The Supernova Sample}\label{s:sample}

198: 

199: \subsection{The Previously Existing Samples} 

200: 

201: N06 compiled a list of 24 \snep, 6 of which had not yet been

202: published; one new event (SN 2004dh) was studied as part of the

203: Caltech Core Collapse Project (CCCP; \citealt{gal-yam07cccp}) and is

204: at low redshift, while the other 5 are at moderate redshifts,

205: $0.1<z<0.3$, found in the course of the Supernova Legacy Survey

206: \citep{astier06}. The other 18 SNe, previously collected by H05 and

207: HP02, were found and observed between 1986 and 2000, with a variety of

208: instruments. All of those SNe had $z<0.06$, though the majority were

209: at $z<0.01$. For such nearby objects peculiar velocities of the host

210: galaxies dominate the error budget, thus complicating the derivation

211: of robust correlations and distances.

212: 

213: Since a ``standard'' Hubble diagram of distance modulus vs. redshift

214: assumes that the sole contribution to the redshifts is cosmological,

215: we apply corrections to the heliocentric redshifts in order to account

216: for the peculiar velocities of nearby galaxies.  Following previous

217: authors, in the analysis below we correct the heliocentric redshifts

218: derived from the SNe and their host galaxies to the local Hubble flow

219: using the \citet{tonry00} prescription. We further assume a Hubble

220: constant $H_0=70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$. Since we later fit for the

221: absolute magnitude of the SNe, $H_0$ merely serves as a convenient

222: scaling constant. For SN\,1999em, we derive a redshift using the

223: Hubble law and the Cepheid distance measured by \citet{leonard03},

224: $11.7 \pm 1$\,Mpc. We re-reduced the images of SN\,2004dh and report

225: here new photometry for that event. Finally, following H05, we remove

226: SN\,2000cb from the sample, since it is now believed to be a

227: SN\,1987A-like event rather than a classic \snp. Hereafter we will

228: refer to these 23 SNe as the ``HPN sample''(for Hamuy, Pinto, and

229: Nugent).

230: 

231: \subsection{The KAIT Sample: Nearly Doubling the Low-Redshift 

232: Census}\label{s:Ksample} 

233: 

234: The 0.76-m Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope (KAIT) is mostly known

235: as the SN discovery engine of the Lick Observatory SN Search

236: \citep[LOSS;][]{filippenko01,filippenko05b}, but a substantial

237: fraction of its time is dedicated to follow-up broadband photometry of

238: nearby SNe. As part of this program, dozens of SNe\,II have been

239: monitored in the past ten years.  We select the \snep\ from the KAIT

240: sample, since other core-collapse SN subtypes are not necessarily

241: expected to obey the same correlations.  However, the \snp\ subclass

242: is not well defined. While historically SNe were classified by their

243: light-curve shapes, and SNe with a distinctive plateau were dubbed

244: \snep\ \citep[e.g.,][]{barbon79,doggett85}, it is unclear how constant

245: a plateau must be, how long that phase must last, and in which

246: photometric bands it appears. In fact, those SNe which show hydrogen

247: in their spectra but photometrically decline linearly (in magnitudes)

248: were called SNe II-L, but not a single one of the best-studied objects

249: (e.g., SN\,1979C) is considered a ``normal'' prototype (e.g,

250: \citealt{poznanski02}, and references therein; Poznanski et al. 2009,

251: in prep.).

252: 

253: With the modern emphasis shifting to spectroscopic follow-up

254: observations, the classification becomes, dishearteningly, even

255: muddier. It is often assumed by SN observers that only \snep\ exhibit

256: hydrogen lines having P-Cygni profiles (e.g., \citealt{schlegel96}),

257: but this claim has not been explored systematically. Lately, several

258: core-collapse SNe with extreme luminosities have been discovered

259: \citep[e.g.,][]{ofek07,smith07,smith08tf,quimby07,miller08,gezari08},

260: stretching the classification scheme beyond its current limits.

261: 

262: For the purpose of this work, we define the \snp\ subclass as follows:

263: (a) prominent hydrogen features in the spectra, (b) no narrow emission

264: lines indicative of interaction with the circumburst medium, and (c) a

265: prominent ``plateau'' phase in the $I$-band light curve.

266: 

267: 

268: \begin{deluxetable}

269: 	{lrrrrrrl} 

270: 	\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

271: 	

272: 	%\rotate

273: 	

274: 	\tablecaption{KAIT Sample \label{t:KAIT}} 

275: 	\tablewidth{0pt} 

276: 	\tablehead{ 

277: 	\colhead{IAU Name} & 

278: 	\colhead{Heliocentric $cz$}& 

279: 	\colhead{Flow $cz$\tablenotemark{a}} & 

280: 	\colhead{$t_{\rm expl}$\tablenotemark{b}} & 

281: 	\colhead{$v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }$\tablenotemark{c}} & 

282: 	\colhead{$m_I$\tablenotemark{d}} & 

283: 	\colhead{$V-I$\tablenotemark{d}} & 

284: 	\colhead{Discovery Reference} \\

285: 	\colhead{ } &\colhead{(km\,s$^{-1}$)} &\colhead{(km\,s$^{-1}$)} &

286: 	\colhead{ } &\colhead{(km\,s$^{-1}$)} &\colhead{(mag)} &\colhead{(mag)} } 

287: 	\startdata 

288: 	SN1999bg\tablenotemark{e} &  1275 &  1214(187) & 1259(5) &  4657(439) & 15.31(0.02) & 0.74(0.04) & \citet{li99a} \\ %  

289: 	SN1999em &   717 &   819( 70)\tablenotemark{f} & 1476(4) &  3382(171) & 13.23(0.03) & 0.58(0.03) & \citet{li99} \\ %  

290: 	SN1999gi &   592 &   643(187) & 1520(4) &  3697(200) & 14.00(0.02) & 0.86(0.03) & \citet{nakano99} \\ %  

291: 	SN2000bs &  8387 &  8387(187) & 1650(6) &  4115(276) & 17.67(0.09) & 0.51(0.10) & \citet{papenkova00} \\ %  

292: 	SN2000dc\tablenotemark{e} &  3117 &  3113(187) & 1762(4) &  4545(232) & 16.05(0.06) & 0.97(0.06) & \citet{yu00} \\ %  

293: 	SN2000dj &  4629 &  4625(187) & 1789(7) &  4784(250) & 17.00(0.09) & 0.59(0.11) & \citet{aazami00} \\ %  

294: 	SN 2001x &  1480 &  1329(187) & 1964(5) &  3800(203) & 14.74(0.02) & 0.57(0.03) & \citet{li01a} \\ %  

295: 	SN2001bq &  2623 &  2238(187) & 2034(6) &  4023(238) & 15.55(0.03) & 0.51(0.08) & \citet{nakano01} \\ %  

296: 	SN2001cm &  3412 &  3413(187) & 2064(0) &  4065(189) & 16.30(0.02) & 0.68(0.03) & \citet{jiang01} \\ %  

297: 	SN2001cy\tablenotemark{e} &  4478 &  4473(187) & 2086(6) &  3987(218) & 16.13(0.04) & 0.63(0.05) & \citet{ganeshalingam01} \\ %  

298: 	SN2001do\tablenotemark{e} &  3124 &  3121(187) & 2134(2) &  3927(311) & 15.75(0.03) & 0.97(0.05) & \citet{modjaz01b} \\ 

299: 	SN2002gd\tablenotemark{e} &  2674 &  2418(187) & 2551(2) &  2774(315) & 16.78(0.03) & 0.74(0.05) & \citet{klotz02} \\ %  

300: 	SN2002hh &    48 &   297(187) & 2576(2) &  3692(435) & 13.68(0.05) & 2.67(0.05) & \citet{li02} \\ %  

301: 	SN2003hl &  2472 &  2105(187) & 2868(4) &  3561(293) & 15.60(0.02) & 0.98(0.04) & \citet{li03} \\ %  

302: 	SN2003iq &  2472 &  2105(187) & 2921(1) &  4043(179) & 15.27(0.03) & 0.66(0.03) & \citet{llapasset03} \\ %  

303: 	SN2004du\tablenotemark{e} &  5025 &  5020(187) & 3223(4) &  4855(302) & 16.60(0.04) & 0.53(0.07) & \citet{singer04} \\ %  

304: 	SN2004et &    48 &   297(187) & 3272(0) &  3980(194) & 11.39(0.01) & 0.52(0.01) & \citet{zwitter04} \\ %  

305: 	SN2005ay &   809 &   816(187) & 3453(4) &  3432(224) & 14.67(0.02) & 0.63(0.06) & \citet{rich05} \\ %  

306: 	SN2005cs &   463 &   505(187) & 3550(1)\tablenotemark{g} &  2102(211) & 13.98(0.02) & 0.69(0.03) & \citet{kloehr05} \\ %  

307: \enddata 

308: 

309: 

310: \tablenotetext{a}{Corrected velocity of recession using the local Hubble-flow 

311: model of \citet{tonry00}, unless otherwise noted.} 

312: \tablenotetext{b}{Explosion date, assumed to be the midpoint 

313: epoch (given as Julian Day $-$ 2,450,000) between 

314: the time of discovery and the last nondetection (the uncertainty being half this value), unless otherwise noted.} 

315: \tablenotetext{c}{Fit velocity of the Fe~II line at day 50, on the plateau.} 

316: \tablenotetext{d}{Measured at day 50, on the plateau.} 

317: \tablenotetext{e}{Not used in the final sample, see \S\ref{s:culling}.} 

318: \tablenotetext{f}{From the Cepheid distance of \citet{leonard03} and the Hubble law.} 

319: \tablenotetext{g}{From \citet{pastorello06}.} 

320: \end{deluxetable}

321: 

322: 

323: The light-curve shape criterion is intentionally defined here rather

324: loosely, so as not to preselect the best objects (beyond unavoidable

325: observational biases) and is revisited in detail in

326: \S\ref{s:culling}. Several dozen SNe in the KAIT sample pass these

327: criteria, but for 19 of them we have the data necessary for empirical

328: calibration and distance measurement; they constitute the main sample

329: analyzed here (Table \ref{t:KAIT}).  The \snep\ that were not selected

330: for this work were usually missing early-phase photometry to constrain

331: the explosion date, or lacked spectroscopic coverage during the

332: plateau, as required for measuring velocities. Two of our 19 chosen

333: SNe (SN\,1999em and SN\,1999gi) are already present in the HPN sample;

334: they are very well-studied objects

335: \citep[e.g.,][]{hamuy01,leonard02em,leonard02gi,dessart06}. We have

336: used them to ascertain that there are no systematic offsets between

337: our magnitude and velocity measurements and those of previous authors.

338: Thus, our sample consists of 17 new \snep.

339: 

340: The optical CCD images of the SNe were reduced as follows.

341: Flat-fielding and bias subtraction were performed automatically at the

342: telescope using calibration frames appropriate for the science

343: images. Galaxy subtraction and differential photometry were done using

344: the KAIT pipeline (Ganeshalingam et al. 2009, in prep.). Galaxy

345: template images were obtained with KAIT at least a few months after

346: the SN had faded beyond detection.  To ensure high-quality

347: subtractions, templates were acquired on photometric nights with

348: seeing $\le 3.0 ''$. Two independent routines were used to perform

349: galaxy subtraction. The first method is based on the ISIS package

350: \citep{alard98} as modified by Brian P. Schmidt for the High-$z$

351: Supernova Search Team \citep{schmidt98}. The second method is based on

352: the IRAF\footnote{IRAF: the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility is

353: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is

354: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,

355: Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science

356: Foundation (NSF).} task {\sc PSFMATCH} \citep{phillips95}. We

357: performed differential point-spread function (PSF) fitting photometry

358: to the results of both subtraction methods using the {\sc DAOPHOT}

359: package in IRAF to measure the SN flux relative to local standards in

360: the field. The results of the two subtraction methods were averaged.

361: 

362: Calibrations were obtained on photometric nights using both KAIT and

363: the 1~m Nickel telescope at Lick Observatory. \citet{landolt92}

364: standards were observed at a variety of airmasses on each night to

365: derive a photometric solution that we then applied to local standards

366: for each of the SN fields. Instrumental magnitudes were transformed to

367: standard Johnson-Cousins magnitudes using color terms derived from the

368: photometric solution of many Landolt standard-star calibrations (see

369: \citealt{modjaz01} and \citealt{li01cx} for more details). The

370: uncertainty in our subtraction and photometry pipeline is estimated by

371: injecting artificial stars with the same magnitude and PSF as the SN

372: into the original KAIT images and recovering them. The final

373: uncertainty is taken to be the scatter in recovering 20 artificial

374: stars added in quadrature with the calibration error.  We correct the

375: magnitudes for Galactic extinction using the maps of

376: \citet{schlegel98}.

377: 

378: We obtained optical spectra with the Kast double spectrograph

379: \citep{miller93} mounted on the Lick Observatory 3~m Shane telescope,

380: the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer \citep[LRIS;][]{oke95} mounted

381: on the 10~m Keck\,I telescope, and the Deep Imaging Multi-Object

382: Spectrograph \citep[DEIMOS;][]{faber03} on the 10~m Keck\,II

383: telescope. The position angle of the slit was generally aligned along

384: the parallactic angle to reduce differential light losses

385: \citep{filippenko82}.

386: 

387: All spectra were reduced using standard techniques

388: \citep[e.g.,][]{foley03}. Routine CCD processing and spectrum

389: extraction for the Kast and LRIS data were completed with IRAF.  These

390: data were extracted with the optimal algorithm of \citet{horne86}.

391: CCD processing of the DEIMOS spectra was performed with a modified

392: version of the DEEP pipeline \citep[e.g.,][]{weiner05}.  This produced

393: rectified, sky-subtracted two-dimensional spectra from which

394: one-dimensional spectra were then extracted optimally \citep{horne86}.

395: The wavelength scale was derived from low-order polynomial fits to

396: calibration-lamp spectra.  Small wavelength shifts were then applied

397: to the data after cross-correlating a template night-sky spectrum to

398: the sky spectrum extracted near the SN position on the slit.  Using

399: custom routines, we fit spectrophotometric standard-star spectra to

400: the data in order to flux calibrate the spectra and to remove telluric

401: lines \citep{wade88, matheson00}. Information

402: regarding both our photometric and spectroscopic data (such as

403: observing conditions, instrument, data reducer, etc.) was obtained

404: from our SN database (SNDB).  The SNDB uses the popular open-source

405: software stack known as LAMP: the Linux operating system, the Apache

406: webserver, the MySQL relational database management system, and the

407: PHP server-side scripting language  (Silverman et al. 2009, in prep.).

408: Figure \ref{f:spec} shows one

409: spectrum of each of the 19 chosen SNe.

410: 

411: 

412: \begin{figure}

413: 	\epsscale{1}

414: \plotone{f1.eps}

415: \caption{A representative spectrum (the closest to day 50) for each of

416: the 19 SNe in our sample. The analysis herein makes use of about 75

417: spectra of these 19 events.\label{f:spec}}

418: \end{figure}

419: 

420: 

421: 

422: \begin{figure}

423: 	\epsscale{0.7}

424: %\plotone{f1p1.eps}

425: \plotone{f2.eps}

426: \plotone{f2b.eps}

427: \caption{Light curves of the 19 \snep\ from KAIT: $B$ (blue dots), $V$

428: (green upside-down triangles), $R$ (red triangles), and $I$ (black

429: squares). Vertical line segments at the bottom of each panel mark the

430: times for which we have spectra. Note the abundance of spectra, and

431: the diversity in the SN light-curve shapes.\label{f:LC}}

432: \end{figure}

433: 

434: 

435: 

436: Figure \ref{f:LC} presents the $BVRI$ light curves of our 19 SNe, and

437: shows the epochs at which spectra were obtained. In total, there are

438: about 1500 photometric points and 75 spectra used in this study. A

439: thorough analysis of these data is beyond the scope of this paper, and

440: will be discussed by Poznanski et al. (2009, in prep.). However, we

441: note the great diversity of plateau shapes, a subject to which we

442: return in \S\ref{s:culling}.

443: 

444: From the light curves we determine, using linear interpolation where

445: necessary, the apparent magnitude in the $I$ band and the \VmI\ color

446: at 50~d past explosion. We set the explosion date conservatively as

447: the midpoint between the last nondetection of the SN and its discovery

448: date (and the uncertainty as half this interval), except for

449: SN\,2005cs where we use the constraint determined by

450: \citet{pastorello06}. For many objects better constraints on the

451: explosion date could be set by using additional techniques (e.g.,

452: fitting templates to the photometry and/or spectroscopy); however, the

453: explosion-date uncertainties have little impact on our results, since

454: neither the color nor the magnitude (or \fe\ velocities, see below)

455: vary significantly during the plateau phase.  We have well-sampled

456: light curves, and as can be seen in Figure\ \ref{f:spec}, we have

457: spectra near day 50 for most of our SNe.

458: 

459: Since the KAIT filter system differs somewhat from the Bessell

460: curves used by N06, we also $S$-correct \citep{stritzinger02} 

461: the photometry to the standard Bessell 

462: \bvri curves taken from the database of \citet{moro00}. 

463: We do the correction by warping a standard day

464: 50 template spectrum to the KAIT photometry, and measuring synthetic

465: magnitudes using the Bessell filter response. This has no noticeable

466: influence on our results, since the corrections are all smaller than

467: 2\% in the measured values.

468: 

469: From the spectra we measure the apparent \fe\ velocity, defined here

470: as the minimum of the \fe\ line with respect to

471: 5169\,\AA. Unfortunately, there is no ``industry standard'' framework

472: to determine the velocities of such broad, often noisy, and sometimes 

473: asymmetric lines; the different approaches we tried reveal systematic

474: differences in the derived values and hence different calibration

475: parameters. In an effort to develop a method that is simple, robust,

476: and readily available to the community, we decided to use the supernova

477: identification code \citep[SNID;][]{blondin07}, originally designed

478: for the automatic spectral classification of SNe. It uses the

479: \citet{tonry79} cross-correlation algorithm, and is flexible enough to

480: be used for our purpose.

481: 

482: 

483: 

484: \begin{figure}

485: \plotone{f3.eps}

486: \caption{

487: {\it Left:} Example application of our SNID-based \fe\ velocity

488: measurement to a typical spectrum.  A day 90 spectrum of SN\,2001X is

489: cross-correlated with a set of templates using SNID, and a velocity is

490: derived from each template (black dots).  The best-fitting templates

491: are selected based on SNID \textit{rlap} values (blue circles), and

492: sigma clipped to reject outliers (red crosses).  A weighted mean is

493: calculated from the selected velocities.  {\it Right:} For a given

494: object (SN\,2001X in this example), each velocity (black circles) is

495: propagated to day 50 (red circles) using Equation~(2) of N06 (dashed

496: line; our Equation (\ref{eq:nu2})).  A weighted mean supplies the final \fe\

497: velocity for that SN, and its uncertainty.  An additional uncertainty

498: of 150\,km\,s$^{-1}$ is added in quadrature to every SN, to account

499: for peculiar motion.\label{f:snid}}

500: \end{figure}

501: 

502: 

503: 

504: Figure \ref{f:snid} shows an example application of our method.  We use

505: the high-quality \snp\ templates distributed with SNID, for which the

506: \fe\ absorption-minimum wavelengths can be measured in a

507: straightforward way (e.g., by fitting a Gaussian to the line). We then

508: cross-correlate every spectrum with the templates (using only the

509: relevant wavelength range, 4500--5500\,\AA), choose only those

510: templates that produce a good fit (those with SNID $rlap$ values

511: greater than the median for the group), and calculate a sigma-clipped

512: ($3\sigma$) weighted mean (left panel of Fig. \ref{f:snid}). We

513: convert the wavelength offsets to velocity using the relativistic

514: Doppler formula. Each velocity (and its uncertainty) is then propagated

515: to day 50 on the plateau using Equation~(2) of N06,

516: \begin{equation}

517: 	v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }(50\,{\rm d}) = v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }(t)(t/50\,{\rm 

518: d})^{0.464\pm0.017}. \label{eq:nu2}

519: \end{equation}

520: 

521: Since most SNe have more than one available spectrum, we calculate for

522: each SN the weighted mean of all derived \fe\ velocities (right panel

523: of Fig. \ref{f:snid}). We add to the velocity uncertainty of every

524: SN a value of $\sigma_{\rm pec} = $150\,km\,s$^{-1}$, in quadrature,

525: to account for unknown peculiar velocities within the hosts

526: \citep{sofue01}. We have also confirmed that Equation (\ref{eq:nu2}) is

527: consistent with our spectra, and we find no substantial residual from

528: the N06 result, within its uncertainty.

529: 

530: As for the HPN sample, the apparent heliocentric redshifts of the SN

531: hosts are derived from NED\footnote{The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic

532: Database is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

533: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National

534: Aeronautics and Space Administration.}  and corrected for local flows

535: using the model of \citet{tonry00}. The properties of SNe in our sample,

536: as measured above, are included in Table \ref{t:KAIT}.

537: 

538: %\pagebreak

539: \subsection{Sample Comparison}\label{s:compsamp} 

540: 

541: To understand whether HPN and KAIT sample a similar population, we

542: compare the relevant observables in both samples. Figure \ref{f:hist}

543: shows a comparison of the distribution of uncorrected absolute

544: $I$-band magnitudes (top panel), $V-I$ colors (middle), and \fe\

545: velocities (bottom), all at day 50 on the plateau, as measured

546: above. These are the quantities used for standardization and distance

547: measurement. Surprisingly, the luminosity distributions appear consistent with

548: each other, while the KAIT sample features redder colors indicating a higher

549: average extinction, and lower velocities that point to lower

550: luminosities.

551: 

552: 

553: \begin{figure}

554: %[htbp] 

555: \epsscale{0.5} \plotone{f4.eps} \caption{Comparison of the HPN and

556: KAIT samples, showing observables relevant for distance

557: measurements. Uncalibrated absolute magnitude 

558: (i.e., without applying dust or \fe\ velocity correction; top), \VmI\ (middle), and

559: \fe\ velocity (bottom).  KS statistics indicate that the samples can be

560: assumed to be drawn from the same underlying distribution at high

561: significance for the absolute magnitude, but quite low significance for the

562: color and \fe\ velocities.

563: \label{f:hist}}

564: %\vspace{0.2cm} 

565: \end{figure}

566: 

567: 

568: 

569: Using Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) statistics, we find that the luminosity

570: distributions match reasonably well ($P_{\rm K-S}$ values of 0.66),

571: whereas the colors and velocities are less consistent ($P_{\rm K-S}$

572: values of 0.13 and 0.06, respectively). Those results remain similar

573: if one considers only $z<0.1$ SNe.  However, the high-velocity objects

574: in the HPN sample all have substantial uncertainties that are not

575: taken into account by KS statistics. For example, most of the 

576: highest-velocity SNe in the HPN samples have velocity uncertainties

577: of 2000\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Nevertheless, differences in

578: sample properties should be expected, due to the era in which they

579: were compiled. KAIT is expected to be sensitive to fainter SNe, either

580: intrinsically (hence with lower average velocities) or due to dust

581: obscuration (hence with red colors).  One should note that while the

582: KAIT sample may be less biased than the HPN sample, the luminosity

583: function is still skewed significantly toward bright objects, due to

584: follow-up criteria, as the median absolute magnitude is 0.5$-$1 mag

585: brighter than the observed distribution of all KAIT \snep\ (i.e.,

586: including those SNe that were not scheduled for follow-up

587: observations; Li et al. 2009, in prep.).  While the importance of this

588: bias should be explored with future more balanced samples, we note

589: that at high redshift the same selection naturally occurs. The

590: difference between the samples in terms of the observed properties has

591: a visible effect on the Hubble diagram we construct, as discussed in

592: \S\ref{s:bestfit}.

593: 

594: With an absolute magnitude distribution spanning more than 5 mag and a

595: diverse set of light-curve shapes (Fig.\ \ref{f:LC}), the

596: standardizability of \snep\ would appear to be a significant

597: challenge. However, as we demonstrate below, the resultant Hubble

598: diagram remains tight, and the velocity vs. luminosity correlation

599: persists, despite the larger and less homogeneous sample.

600: 

601: Using the 23 SNe in the HPN sample, and the 19 in the KAIT sample, we

602: construct our list of 40 SNe, after merging the two shared SNe,

603: SN\,1999em and SN\,1999gi. For these two SNe we use the KAIT

604: measurements, due to the somewhat smaller uncertainties (but

605: consistent values) we obtain for the observables. Table \ref{t:final}

606: lists the full sample used in the subsequent analysis.

607: 

608: 

609: 

610: \begin{deluxetable}

611: {lrrrrrl} 

612: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

613: 

614: %\rotate

615: 

616: \tablecaption{Final Sample \label{t:final}} 

617: \tablewidth{0pt} 

618: \tablehead{ 

619: \colhead{Name\tablenotemark{a}}  &

620: \colhead{$cz/z$\tablenotemark{b}} &

621: \colhead{$v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }$\tablenotemark{c}} &

622: \colhead{$m_I$\tablenotemark{c}} &

623: \colhead{$V-I$\tablenotemark{c}} &

624: \colhead{Best-fit $\mu$} &

625: \colhead{Source} \\

626: \colhead{} &

627: \colhead{(km\,s$^{-1}$)} &

628: \colhead{(km\,s$^{-1}$)} &

629: \colhead{(mag)} &

630: \colhead{(mag)} &

631: \colhead{(mag)} } 

632:  \startdata 

633: SN2002hh &   297(187) &  3692( 435) & 13.68(0.05) & 2.67(0.05)  & 28.89(0.23) & KAIT \\ %  

634: SN2004et &   297(187) &  3980( 194) & 11.39(0.01) & 0.52(0.01)  & 28.36(0.09) & KAIT \\ %  

635: SN2005cs &   505(187) &  2102( 211) & 13.98(0.02) & 0.69(0.03)  & 29.61(0.21) & KAIT \\ %  

636: SN1999gi &   643(187) &  3697( 200) & 14.00(0.02) & 0.86(0.03)  & 30.57(0.13) & KAIT \\ %  

637: SN1999br &   757(187) &  1545( 300) & 16.67(0.05) & 0.84(0.07)  & 31.60(0.43) & N06 \\ %  

638: SN2005ay &   816(187) &  3432( 224) & 14.67(0.02) & 0.63(0.06)  & 31.27(0.13) & KAIT \\ %  

639: SN1999em &   819( 70)\tablenotemark{d} &  3382( 171) & 13.23(0.03) & 0.58(0.03)  & 29.84(0.11) & KAIT \\ %  

640: SN1991G  &  1029(187) &  3347( 500) & 15.01(0.09) & 0.45(0.11)  & 31.70(0.36) & N06 \\ %  

641: SN1992ba &  1064(187) &  3523( 300) & 14.65(0.05) & 0.59(0.07)  & 31.33(0.18) & N06 \\ %  

642: SN1989L  &  1189(187) &  3529( 300) & 14.47(0.05) & 0.88(0.07)  & 30.94(0.19) & N06 \\ %  

643: SN1986I  &  1190(187) &  3623( 300) & 13.98(0.09) & 0.45(0.22)  & 30.82(0.29) & N06 \\ %  

644: SN1990E  &  1273(187) &  5324( 300) & 14.51(0.20) & 1.31(0.28)  & 31.44(0.37) & N06 \\ %  

645: SN2001x  &  1329(187) &  3800( 203) & 14.74(0.02) & 0.57(0.03)  & 31.59(0.11) & KAIT \\ %  

646: SN1990K  &  1623(187) &  6142(2000) & 13.87(0.05) & 0.58(0.21)  & 31.62(0.75) & N06 \\ %  

647: SN2003hl &  2105(187) &  3561( 293) & 15.60(0.02) & 0.98(0.04)  & 32.01(0.14) & KAIT \\ %  

648: SN2003iq &  2105(187) &  4043( 179) & 15.27(0.03) & 0.66(0.03)  & 32.16(0.10) & KAIT \\ %  

649: SN2001bq &  2238(187) &  4023( 238) & 15.55(0.03) & 0.51(0.08)  & 32.55(0.13) & KAIT \\ %  

650: SN1999ca &  2772(187) &  5353(2000) & 15.56(0.05) & 0.73(0.07)  & 32.93(0.89) & N06 \\ %  

651: SN2001cm & 0.011(0.001) &  4065( 189) & 16.30(0.02) & 0.68(0.03)  & 33.18(0.10) & KAIT \\ %  

652: SN1991al & 0.013(0.001) &  7330(2000) & 16.06(0.05) & 0.39(0.07)  & 34.28(0.54) & N06 \\ %  

653: SN2000dj & 0.015(0.001) &  4784( 250) & 17.00(0.09) & 0.59(0.11)  & 34.26(0.18) & KAIT \\ %  

654: SN1992af & 0.016(0.001) &  5322(2000) & 16.46(0.20) & 0.43(0.28)  & 34.05(0.87) & N06 \\ %  

655: SN2004dh & 0.017(0.001) &  4990( 300) & 17.60(0.15)\tablenotemark{e} & 0.70(0.21)\tablenotemark{e}  & 34.86(0.30) & N06 \\ %  

656: SN1999cr & 0.019(0.001) &  4389( 300) & 17.44(0.05) & 0.56(0.07)  & 34.56(0.18) & N06 \\ %  

657: SN1999eg & 0.019(0.001) &  4012( 300) & 17.72(0.05) & 0.55(0.07)  & 34.68(0.16) & N06 \\ %  

658: SN1993A  & 0.027(0.001) &  4290( 300) & 18.56(0.05) & 0.51(0.07)  & 35.68(0.17) & N06 \\ %  

659: SN2000bs & 0.028(0.001) &  4115( 276) & 17.67(0.17) & 0.51(0.20)  & 34.71(0.31) & KAIT \\ %  

660: SN1993S  & 0.029(0.001) &  4569( 300) & 18.22(0.05) & 0.69(0.07)  & 35.32(0.14) & N06 \\ %  

661: SN1992am & 0.042(0.001) &  7868( 300) & 17.90(0.05) & 0.38(0.07)  & 36.27(0.11) & N06 \\ %  

662: SN04D4fu & 0.119(0.001) &  3861( 150) & 21.99(0.04) & 0.59(0.05)  & 38.85(0.11) & N06 \\ %  

663: SN03D4cw & 0.138(0.001) &  3067( 660) & 22.33(0.09) & 0.90(0.10)  & 38.52(0.47) & N06 \\ %  

664: SN04D1pj & 0.139(0.001) &  4981( 214) & 21.99(0.04) & 0.66(0.06)  & 39.28(0.11) & N06 \\ %  

665: SN04D1ln & 0.185(0.001) &  3593( 159) & 22.79(0.05) & 0.70(0.07)  & 39.43(0.12) & N06 \\ %  

666: SN03D3ce & 0.257(0.001) &  5762( 522) & 23.45(0.50) & 0.39(0.50)  & 41.22(0.79) & N06 \\ %  

667: \\

668: %\tableline

669: \underline{Culled SNe}\\

670: %\tableline

671: \\

672: SN1999bg &  1214(187) &  4657( 439) & 15.31(0.02) & 0.74(0.04)  & 32.41(0.18) & KAIT \\ %  

673: SN2002gd &  2418(187) &  2774( 315) & 16.78(0.03) & 0.74(0.05)  & 32.90(0.21) & KAIT \\ %  

674: SN2000dc & 0.010(0.001) &  4545( 232) & 16.05(0.06) & 0.97(0.06)  & 32.93(0.14) & KAIT \\ %  

675: SN2001do & 0.010(0.001) &  3927( 311) & 15.75(0.03) & 0.97(0.05)  & 32.35(0.15) & KAIT \\ %  

676: SN2001cy & 0.015(0.001) &  3987( 218) & 16.13(0.04) & 0.63(0.05)  & 33.01(0.12) & KAIT \\ %  

677: SN2004du & 0.017(0.001) &  4855( 302) & 16.60(0.04) & 0.53(0.07)  & 33.94(0.13) & KAIT \\ %

678: \enddata 

679: %\tablecomments{Table \ref{t:data} here.} 

680: \tablenotetext{a}{Sorted by increasing redshift.}

681: \tablenotetext{b}{From local Hubble-flow model of \citet{tonry00} (unless 

682: otherwise noted). For $cz>3000$ km\,s$^{-1}$ the redshift is given.} 

683: \tablenotetext{c}{At day 50, on the plateau.} 

684: \tablenotetext{d}{From the Cepheid distance of \citet{leonard03} and the Hubble law.} 

685: \tablenotetext{e}{Note that these numbers differ from those in N06, 

686: following our re-reduction of the data.} 

687: \vspace{0.5cm}

688: \end{deluxetable}

689: 

690: 

691: \section{Fitting Method}\label{s:method}

692: 

693: N06 assume a correlation between luminosity and Fe~II velocity that

694: is only modified by a \citet{cardelli89} extinction law, with

695: $R_V=3.1$. However, there is no {\it a priori} reason to assume that

696: all of the SNe in the sample are subject to the same extinction law, with

697: the average curvature found in the Milky Way.  For that reason we

698: modify the color-dependent term in Equation (1) of N06 to be a free

699: parameter. This term, which has a value of 1.36 in N06\footnote{Note

700: the sign misprint in N06 for that term.}, we refer to as $R_I$. Given the

701: color excess $E(V-I)\equiv(V-I)-(V-I)_0$, $R_I$ defines the amount of

702: extinction in the $I$ band, such that $A_I = R_I E(V-I)$. The value of

703: $R_I$ can be directly derived from the \citet{cardelli89} extinction

704: curve as a function of $R_V$. We therefore obtain a slightly modified

705: Equation (1) of N06:

706: \begin{equation}

707: \label{eq:M} M_I= M_{I_0}-\alpha \log_{10}(v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }/5000) +R_I \left[ (V-I)-(V-I)_0 \right]. 

708: \end{equation}

709: 

710: In addition, we use ``Hubble-constant free'' absolute magnitudes and

711: luminosity distances ${\cal M}_{I_0}\equiv M_{I_0}-5\log_{10}

712: (H_0)+25$ and ${\cal D}_{L} \equiv H_0 D_L$

713: \citep{goobar95,sullivan06a}, since we use no anchor of ``absolute''

714: distance, and measure only the shape of the Hubble diagram (relative

715: distances). We thus find

716: \begin{equation}

717: \label{eq:dl} {\cal M}_{I_0}-\alpha \log_{10}(v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }/5000) +R_I \left[ (V-I)-0.53 \right] -m_I = -5\log_{10}({\cal D}_L(z | \Omega_m ,\Omega_\Lambda)), 

718: \end{equation}

719: where we use for the ridge-line color the value from N06, $(V-I)_0 = 0.53$

720: mag. As mentioned by N06, the precise value for this color is degenerate 

721: with ${\cal M}_{I_0}$, and does not influence our other results. As seen in the middle panel of 

722: fig. \ref{f:hist}, perhaps due to the ubiquity of dust around \snep, or as a consequence of an intrinsic dispersion, 

723: it is difficult to find a precise value for the unreddened color of those SNe. 

724: 

725: Since all of the terms in Equation (\ref{eq:dl}) have errors,

726: including significant redshift uncertainties for the nearby SNe, we

727: maximize the marginal likelihood ${\cal L}$ by minimizing the

728: multivariate cost function

729: 

730: \begin{equation}

731: \begin{split}

732: -2\log ({\cal L})&=\sum\{\, \frac{[{\cal M}_{I_0}-\alpha \log_{10}(v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }/5000) +R_I \left[ (V-I)-0.53 \right] -m_I + 5\log_{10}({\cal D}_L(z))]^2} { \alpha \sigma^2_{\log_{10}(v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }/5000)} +R_I \sigma^2_{(V-I)} +\sigma^2_{m_I} + \sigma^2_{5\log_{10}({\cal D}_L(z))} + \sigma^2_{\rm sys}} \\

733: & + \log(\alpha \sigma^2_{\log_{10}(v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }/5000)} +R_I \sigma^2_{(V-I)} +\sigma^2_{m_I} + \sigma^2_{5\log_{10}({\cal D}_L(z))}+ \sigma^2_{\rm sys} ) \,\}, \label{eq:ll} 

734: \end{split}

735: \end{equation}

736: where the summation is over the SNe in the sample \citep[e.g.,

737: ][]{kelly07}. The second, logarithmic term --- which comes from the

738: normalization of the likelihood function --- helps mitigate the

739: tendency of the first term to overfit the data by preferring large

740: values of $\alpha$, $R_I$, and $\sigma_{\rm sys}$.  We note, however,

741: that this term does not significantly change the resulting best-fit

742: parameters. We include in the denominator (and the logarithmic term)

743: of Equation (\ref{eq:ll}) a systematic uncertainty $\sigma_{\rm sys}$

744: in order to include (and measure) the intrinsic scatter in the

745: correlation (i.e., the contribution to the dispersion not accounted

746: for by the measurement errors).

747: 

748: The parameters to be fit are therefore ${\cal M}_{I_0}$ (although for

749: simplicity we will keep citing values for $M_{I_0}$, assuming

750: $H_0=70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$), $\alpha$, $R_I$ (that we translate

751: to $R_V$), $\sigma_{\rm sys}$, and the cosmological parameters. For

752: the present low-$z$ data, since we do not have any leverage on the

753: cosmological parameters, we assume a standard cosmology

754: ($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$), and only fit for $\sigma_{\rm

755: sys}$ and the correlation coefficients.

756: 

757: \pagebreak

758: \section{Results}\label{s:results}

759: 

760: Using the complete sample of 40 SNe, we find that the best-fit values

761: after marginalization are $\alpha=4.6\pm0.7$, $R_V=1.5\pm0.5$

762: ($R_I=0.7^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$), $M_{I_0}=-17.43\pm0.10$\,mag, and

763: $\sigma_{\rm sys}=0.38$\,mag.  The systematic scatter is equivalent to

764: an 18\% uncertainty in distance, largely dominating the error budget,

765: being more than twice the median measurement uncertainty.  However,

766: about a third of that scatter is due to two SNe in the KAIT sample,

767: SN\,2001cy and SN\,2001do, and to some lesser extent SN\,1999bg.

768: Those SNe are offset from the best-fit solution by $6.7\sigma$,

769: $4.1\sigma$, and $3.6\sigma$, respectively.  An analysis excluding

770: those objects gives a tight correlation with $\sigma_{\rm

771: sys}=0.22$\,mag, which corresponds to 10\% in distance.

772: 

773: \subsection{Sample Culling for Cosmology} \label{s:culling}

774: 

775: 

776: \begin{figure}

777: \epsscale{1} \plotone{f5.eps}

778: \caption{Offset from the Hubble law fit to the full sample before

779: culling, as a function of the $I$-band decline rate.  As can be

780: clearly seen, SN\,2001cy and SN\,2001do are amongst the strongest

781: decliners and are our most significant outliers, followed by

782: SN\,1999bg which declines as well. The magenta dashed line marks our

783: cutoff, where we select only SNe that have decline rates smaller than

784: (or consistent to 1$\sigma$ with) zero.

785: \label{f:decline}}

786: %\vspace{0.2cm}

787: \end{figure}

788: 

789: 

790: 

791: 

792: A possible glimpse at the source of the discrepancy lies in the

793: photometric behavior of the outlying SNe. This is portrayed in Figure

794: \ref{f:decline}, where we show, for the KAIT SNe, the distance from

795: the Hubble law (as derived from the complete sample) in $\sigma$

796: units, as a function of the decline rate in the $I$ band.  We define

797: here the decline rate as the slope of a linear fit to the $I$-band

798: light curve starting 10~d after explosion (after the rise time), and

799: ending at day 50, in units of mag (50~d)$^{-1}$. The errors are

800: estimated using a Monte-Carlo simulation propagating the uncertainties

801: in the photometry and in the explosion dates.

802: 

803: Figure \ref{f:decline} shows that SN\,2001cy and SN\,2001do have

804: substantial decline rates, about 0.5~mag (50~d)$^{-1}$, while most

805: objects barely decline, or even have rising light curves. The decline

806: vs. offset correlation is not strong; consequently, adding a decline

807: parameter to the fitting only marginally improves the scatter to

808: $\sigma_{\rm sys}=0.33$\,mag.  However, we can now define

809: quantitatively a selective subsample of \snep\ for the

810: purpose of distance measurement in this paper, and reject objects in a

811: controlled manner.  For the purpose of this work, we will keep objects

812: that have decline rates smaller than (or consistent to 1$\sigma$ with)

813: zero.\footnote{Note that we are defining the specific subsample of \snep\ 

814: in this way only for the purpose of having a clear and clean set for

815: cosmological purposes. 

816: We do {\it not} mean to imply that every

817: SN\,II having a decline rate larger than zero is necessarily a

818: SN\,II-L or some other ``not-II-P'' SN. 

819: The real distinction between 

820: \snep, SNe\,II-L, and other potential SN\,II subtypes will

821: be considered in more detail by Poznanski et al. (2009, in prep.).}

822: 

823: As can be seen in Figure \ref{f:decline}, this criterion rejects all

824: three outliers (SNe\,2001cy, 2001do, and 1999bg) by design, but also

825: SNe\,2000dc, 2002gd, and 2004du that are relatively well fit.

826: This choice leaves 34 SNe in the combined sample that we analyze in

827: the following sections.  We emphasize that a similar cut has been

828: applied by N06 prior to the costly follow-up observations of the

829: moderate-$z$ SNe in their sample (P. Nugent, 2008, private comm.), and

830: has most probably been applied to the HP02 sample as well. The precise

831: criteria have not been detailed previously, and could significantly

832: bias the best-fit parameters and dispersion. Our choice, while

833: somewhat arbitrary, does not affect our results below, and any choice

834: that rejects the two major outliers will effectively be equivalent.

835: 

836: 

837: 

838: \subsection{Best-Fit Parameters and Hubble Diagram}\label{s:bestfit}

839: 

840: Using the culled sample of 34 SNe, we find that the best-fit values

841: after marginalization are $\alpha=4.4\pm0.6$, $R_V=1.7\pm0.5$

842: ($R_I=0.8\pm0.3$), $M_{I_0}=-17.39\pm0.08$\,mag, and $\sigma_{\rm

843: sys}=0.22$\,mag (10\% in distance), consistent with the values for the

844: complete sample.  The likelihood contours and the marginalized

845: posteriors are plotted in Figure \ref{f:contours}. As can be seen, the

846: coefficients are weakly covariant.

847: 

848: The value of the best-fit average $R_V$, while small, is consistent

849: with results for many SNe Ia, which tend to suffer an extinction that

850: is very selective

851: \citep{elias-rosa06,krisciunas07,elias-rosa08,nobili08,wang08}. As

852: shown by \citet{wang05} and \citet{goobar08}, this result could be

853: explained with a fairly simple model where ``normal,'' yet

854: circumstellar, dust causes heavily color-dependent scattering. While

855: this model is discussed in the context of SNe\,Ia, core-collapse SNe

856: are expected (and observed) to be enshrouded by more circumstellar

857: dust, which could explain these low $R_V$ values. We note that a small

858: $R_V$ is still the best fit if one removes the highly extinguished

859: SN\,2002hh from the analysis.

860: 

861: Using Equation (\ref{eq:dl}) we build the Hubble diagram in Figure

862: \ref{f:HD}.

863: The scatter around the standard cosmology trend is quite small, and is

864: accounted for by the systematic and measurement uncertainties.  The

865: systematic scatter can be contained in a reasonable velocity

866: dispersion of $\sigma_{v_{\mathrm{Fe\,II} }}=135$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. This

867: is equivalent to, or better than, the results obtained by previous

868: authors, and is encouraging considering the size of the sample and its

869: initial inhomogeneity.

870: 

871: 

872: \begin{figure}

873: \epsscale{.75} \plotone{f6.eps} 

874: \caption{Best-fit parameter ($\alpha,M_{I_0},R_V$) $1\sigma$,

875: $2\sigma$, and $3\sigma$ contours at left; marginalized posterior

876: probabilities at right, for the culled sample of 34 SNe.

877: \label{f:contours}}

878: \end{figure}

879: 

880: 

881: \begin{figure}

882: \epsscale{.8} \plotone{f7.eps} 

883: \caption{Hubble diagram (top), and residuals from standard concordance

884: cosmology (bottom), for the HPN sample (black triangles) and the culled KAIT

885: sample (orange filled circles). ``Standard'' (line) and

886: Einstein-deSitter (dash-dot) cosmologies are added to guide the

887: eye. The bottom-right panel shows the similarity in the distribution

888: of residuals for both samples.\label{f:HD}}

889: \end{figure}

890: 

891: 

892: \subsection{Robustness of the Correlation}\label{s:robust}

893: 

894: In order to test the robustness of the correlation, we explore the

895: importance of the different ingredients in the fit. If one applies

896: {\it no correction at all} (i.e., assume the \snep\ are perfect

897: standard candles), the correlation crumbles, and gives $\sigma_{\rm

898: sys} \approx 0.9$ mag. The same occurs if one does not apply the

899: velocity correction, but only the color correction. 

900: A simple test of the importance of that term is

901: obtained by shuffling the velocity measurements among the objects,

902: assigning to each SN a random value chosen from the sample

903: distribution. The result, on average, is a very weak correlation, with

904: $\sigma_{\rm sys} \approx 0.6$ mag, and unrealistic best values for

905: the coefficients ($\alpha<0$ and $R_V>15$ in most cases; see \citealt{draine03} for a review on 

906: measured values and theoretical limits on $R_V$).

907: 

908: However, if we use solely the \fe\ correction 

909: (which is numerically equivalent to setting $R_I=0$ or $R_V=0.78$),

910: we get a scatter only slightly greater than for the best solution

911: ($\sigma_{\rm sys} \approx 0.26$ mag), and mildly different values for

912: $\alpha$ and $M_{I_0}$. This result indicates that for our

913: sample of SNe, the dust correction is not strongly required by

914: the data.

915: 

916: Since we {\it do} expect SN magnitudes to be affected by dust,

917: there are a few possible explanations we consider. First, it could be

918: that an intrinsic color-velocity correlation masks most of the

919: contribution from dust. While theoretically one could expect the color

920: (i.e., the temperature) to be correlated with the photospheric

921: velocity at least to some extent, we find no indication in the sample

922: for any such covariance, despite having at least a few SNe suffering

923: negligible extinctions.

924: 

925: An alternative explanation is that the sample is heavily biased

926: toward dust-free objects. While this is securely wrong for at least

927: one object \citep[SN\,2002hh, which suffers $\sim$5 mag of

928: extinction in the $V$ band;][]{pozzo06}, it is probably wrong for many

929: of the other SNe as well. H05 finds significant dust corrections for at

930: least some of the SNe in his sample, and our sample should be

931: less ``hand-picked'' as the objects included were discovered by modern-era

932: CCD-equipped SN searches that can find more \snep\ buried in their

933: host galaxies.

934: 

935: However, neglecting SN\,2002hh, most SNe in the sample are within

936: $\sim0.3$\,mag of the sample's mean \VmI\ color. Additionally, for any

937: reasonable dust law, the color term in Equation (\ref{eq:dl}) is at

938: least 3--5 times less significant than the velocity term, so that even

939: substantial differences in color will contribute relatively little to

940: the dispersion in distance moduli. Consequently, a sample that does

941: not have many heavily extinguished objects can be fit about as well

942: when assuming no extinction at all. 

943: 

944: We have searched unsuccessfully for parameters that correlate with the

945: residuals from the Hubble diagram and further reduce the necessary

946: $\sigma_{\rm sys}$ value, other than the slope of the plateau in the

947: light curve that we have used to cull our sample in \S\ref{s:culling}.

948: The $B$-band luminosity at day 50, for example, does not reduce the

949: scatter by more than a few percent of its previous value.  There are

950: indications that rejection of red objects (those having $(V-I)-(V-I)_0

951: \ga 0.2$ mag) may reduce the scatter, but our sample is still too

952: small for us to make a robust statement regarding this.

953: 

954: We also determine the best-fit parameters for different subsamples of

955: the data. The HPN and KAIT samples when analyzed separately give

956: best-fit parameters consistent to within $1\sigma$ with those derived

957: from the full set. When examining various cuts in redshift, we find

958: that the lowest-redshift objects in the sample ($z \leq 0.004$) tend

959: to pull the solutions to somewhat larger values of $\alpha$ (near 6

960: instead of 5), as previously noted by N06 and tentatively ascribed to

961: a Malmquist bias. At $z \ga 0.004$ there seems to be a systematic difference

962: between the two samples, with the KAIT SNe being mostly underneath the 

963: Hubble-law line. The number of SNe in this range is too small for a 

964: conclusive analysis, but we estimate that this is a reflection 

965: of the differences between the samples noted in \S\ref{s:compsamp}. 

966: KAIT finds intrinsically fainter and more extinguished SNe, 

967: for which the fit compensates by reducing their derived distances.   

968: 

969: 

970: \subsection{Shared-Host SNe} 

971: 

972: SN\,2002hh and SN\,2004et both occurred in the same host galaxy,

973: NGC\,6946, a neighbor of the Milky Way ($<10$\,Mpc away). While

974: SN\,2004et shows no apparent uniqueness (except perhaps some small

975: photometric jitter in the plateau phase of the light curve),

976: SN\,2002hh is highly reddened by dust, with $A_V \approx 5$ mag and an

977: infrared echo from a shell with $\sim$10 M$_{\odot}$

978: \citep{barlow05,pozzo06}.  Despite the extreme extinction, the

979: distances of the two SNe, as derived using the best-fit parameters of

980: \S\ref{s:bestfit}, are consistent within about $2\sigma$ (see Table

981: \ref{t:final}).

982: 

983: 

984: SN\,2003hl and SN\,2003iq exploded within weeks of each other, in the

985: same host galaxy, NGC\,772 (see Fig. \ref{f:ngc0772}, left

986: panel). In fact, SN\,2003iq was discovered by an amateur SN observer while

987: following 2003hl \citep{llapasset03}. With the exception of the first

988: spectrum of SN\,2003hl, our spectra were obtained by placing the slit

989: on both objects simultaneously.  In this lower-extinction case

990: (compared with SN\,2002hh in NGC\,6946), the

991: agreement in distance is even better.

992: 

993: However, the distances to both pairs of SNe best agree only for the

994: favored model with low $R_V$. (A similar value for SN\,2002hh has been

995: measured by \citealt{pozzo06} using a full light-curve comparison to

996: SN\,1999em.)  As seen in the right-hand panel of Figure

997: \ref{f:ngc0772}, a value of $R_V=3.1$ is rejected at a combined

998: significance level higher than $4\sigma$.  This result strongly

999: supports the low $R_V$ value favored by the full sample.

1000: 

1001: 

1002: \begin{figure}

1003: %[htbp] 

1004: \epsscale{1} \plottwo{f8.eps}{f8b.eps}

1005: \caption{

1006: {\it Left:} Color composite image of NGC\,772 showing SN\,2003hl

1007: and SN\,2003iq. It consists of KAIT \bvri images, and a

1008: deeper frame from Deep-Sky (Nugent et al. 2009, in prep.) not showing

1009: the SNe, but enhancing galaxy features.  {\it Right:} Distance difference

1010: between SNe 2003hl and 2003iq (solid line) and between SNe 2002hh and

1011: 2004et (dashed line), in $\sigma$ units, as a function of the assumed

1012: $R_V$.  A value of $R_V = 3.1$ (dashed grey line) is rejected at more

1013: than $4\sigma$.  The gray area marks the $1\sigma$ interval preferred

1014: by the full sample. These two pairs of SNe, as well as the full

1015: sample, favor a low-$R_V$ dust model.

1016: \label{f:ngc0772}} 

1017: %\vspace{0.2cm}

1018: \end{figure}

1019: 

1020: 

1021: \subsection{Error Budget: Prospects for Future Samples}

1022: 

1023: While the scatter we find in \S\ref{s:bestfit} is small, it is tightly

1024: coupled to our error estimates. The value $\sigma_{\rm sys}=0.22$\,mag

1025: is in effect the scatter unaccounted for by other error terms.  As can

1026: be seen in Table \ref{t:final}, due to the quality of our data, our

1027: uncertainties are generally smaller than those of previous authors. If

1028: one argues that those uncertainties are underestimated (though we find

1029: that they are not), increasing them by some amount will result in an

1030: even smaller value of $\sigma_{\rm sys}$.

1031: 

1032: As a consequence of our precise measurements, systematic errors

1033: dominate our Hubble diagram.  This allows us to constrain the

1034: intrinsic dispersion of the correlation to be roughly 10\% in

1035: distance. However, one should note that there are observational

1036: limitations that would increase that uncertainty for any foreseeable

1037: sample.  Even for data with exquisite photometry, and high S/N

1038: spectroscopy, there still remains an uncertainty in the peculiar

1039: velocity of the exploding star, on the order of

1040: 150\,km\,s$^{-1}$. This translates to about 0.05$-$0.08\,mag of

1041: uncertainty, i.e., 2$-$4\% in distance. A reasonable precision to

1042: expect for a SN with a single spectrum is about 300\,km\,s$^{-1}$, or

1043: $\sim$0.12\,mag.

1044: 

1045: In addition, any project that wishes to amass a suitable sample of

1046: \snep\ will need to address the critical issue of sample definition

1047: discussed in \S\ref{s:culling}.  A simple strategy to overcome this

1048: would include high-cadence observations during a ``detection phase,'' in

1049: order to have strong constraints on the explosion dates, followed by

1050: low-cadence monitoring of the candidates, in order to ascertain that

1051: they do not decline.

1052: 

1053: The weak dependence on \VmI\ color discussed in \S\ref{s:robust} has

1054: strong utility for extension to high-$z$ SNe, where selection against

1055: faint and reddened SNe is stronger, and dust could have less impact.

1056: A Hubble diagram based only on the $V$ band, without any color term,

1057: is equivalent to fixing $R_I=-1$ in Equation (\ref{eq:dl}).  Solving for

1058: the other parameters, we find a somewhat inferior scatter of

1059: $\sigma_{\rm sys} = 0.29$ mag. However, obtaining rest-frame $I$-band

1060: magnitudes for $z>0.4$ SNe is observationally challenging, requiring

1061: near-infrared observations. The slightly poorer scatter in the $V$ band can

1062: be overcome by statistics.  We do not expect significant scatter (or

1063: evolution) in those photometric bands due to metallicity.  Figure 13

1064: of \citet{baron03} shows that wildly different metallicities produce

1065: little variance in the intrinsic colors of \snep\ at wavelengths

1066: longer than $\sim$5000\,\AA. Future low-$z$ samples will also allow a

1067: better quantitative determination of the cutoff in decline rate that

1068: separates ``good standardizable \snep'' from other SNe.

1069: 

1070: \section{Conclusions}\label{s:conclude}

1071: 

1072: Using a sample that is larger and more diverse than those studied

1073: previously, we have shown that \snep\ can be calibrated using simple

1074: correlations, yielding a tight Hubble diagram with a dispersion of

1075: $\sim$10\% in distance, not much worse than for SNe\,Ia, if one carefully

1076: constructs the sample of SNe. We have shown that the N06

1077: standardization method, a derivative of the HP02 method, might be

1078: simplified even further because the correction for dust extinction,

1079: based on the current sample, has a low statistical impact on the

1080: scatter in the Hubble diagram.  This implies that a distance

1081: measurement could, in principle, be obtained with a single spectrum of

1082: a SN during the plateau phase, combined with rest-frame $V$ or

1083: $I$-band photometry at a similar time. However, additional (lower S/N)

1084: photometry is required during the plateau phase, in order to reject

1085: non-II-P SNe.

1086: 

1087: If dust correction is applied, the best-fit solution prefers a very

1088: steep dust law, with $R_V<2$, as recently indicated for SNe\,Ia.

1089: This may have significant implications for SN\,Ia cosmology, where

1090: systematic uncertainties currently dominate. It is further supported

1091: by two pairs of SNe that occurred in the same host galaxies, and whose

1092: distances agree only for low $R_V$ values.

1093: 

1094: The Hubble diagram in Figure\ \ref{f:HD} is dominated by nearby

1095: objects, where systemic velocities of the host galaxies govern the

1096: error bars.  More exact values of the parameters, and more confidence

1097: in the method, will require the analysis of a sample of SNe in the

1098: Hubble flow.  The most useful redshift range to calibrate the methods

1099: is $z \approx 0.05$--0.1, a distance that has been almost inaccessible

1100: until recently due to the requirement of a very large, and moderately

1101: deep, search. Pan-STARRS \citep{kaiser02} and the Palomar Transient

1102: Factory (PTF; Rau et al. 2009, in prep.) will supply

1103: more \snep\ than any follow-up program could realistically handle. If

1104: subsequent follow-up resources are allocated, those SNe will become

1105: the backbone of any cosmological use of \snep, anchoring the

1106: correlation on more secure grounds.

1107: 

1108: 

1109: 

1110: \acknowledgments 

1111: 

1112: D.P. wishes to thank A. Gal-Yam, D. Maoz, E. Ofek, and A. Sternberg,

1113: for perpetual useful advice.  D.P. and N.B. were partially supported

1114: by US Department of Energy SciDAC grant DE-FC02-06ER41453. N.B. acknowledges 

1115: NASA support through the GLAST Fellowship Program, NASA 

1116: Cooperative Agreement: NNG06DO90A. The

1117: supernova photometry used here was obtained with KAIT; its

1118: construction and ongoing operation were made possible by donations

1119: from Sun Microsystems, Inc., the Hewlett-Packard Company, AutoScope

1120: Corporation, Lick Observatory, the US National Science Foundation, the

1121: University of California, the Sylvia \& Jim Katzman Foundation, and

1122: the TABASGO Foundation.  Most of the spectra used here were obtained

1123: by A.V.F.'s group with the 3~m Shane reflector at Lick Observatory. We

1124: thank the Lick staff for their dedicated help, as well as the

1125: following for their assistance with some of the observations:

1126: C. Anderson, A. Coil, W. de Vries, B. Grigsby, T. Lowe, M. A. Malkan,

1127: T.  Matheson, M. Papenkova, S. Park, J. Rex, K. Shimasaki, T. Treu,

1128: W. van Breugel, D. Weisz, and D. Winslow.  Some additional spectra

1129: were obtained at the W.~M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a

1130: scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology,

1131: the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space

1132: Administration; the observatory was made possible by the generous

1133: financial support of the W.~M. Keck Foundation.  We thank

1134: C. V. Griffith and N. Lee for their help in improving and maintaining

1135: the SNDB.  A.V.F.'s supernova group is supported by NSF grant

1136: AST-0607485, US Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-08ER41563, Gary and

1137: Cynthia Bengier, and the TABASGO Foundation.  J.S.B.'s group is

1138: partially supported by NASA/{\it Swift} grant \#NNG05GF55G and a

1139: Hellman Faculty Award.  A.A.M. is supported by a UC Berkeley

1140: Chancellor's Fellowship.  M.M. is grateful for a Postdoctoral

1141: Fellowship from the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science.

1142: P.E.N. acknowledges support from the US Department of Energy

1143: Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing program under contract

1144: DE-FG02-06ER06-04. This research used resources of the National Energy

1145: Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office

1146: of Science of the US Department of Energy under contract

1147: DE-AC03-76SF00098; we thank them for a generous allocation of

1148: computing time.

1149: 

1150: 

1151: %\pagebreak

1152: %\bibliographystyle{apj2} 

1153: %\bibliography{myBIBTeX}

1154: \begin{thebibliography}{95}

1155: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1156: 

1157: \bibitem[{{Aazami} \& {Li}(2000)}]{aazami00}

1158: {Aazami}, A.~B., \& {Li}, W.~D. 2000, \iaucirc, 7490, 1

1159: 

1160: \bibitem[{{Alard} \& {Lupton}(1998)}]{alard98}

1161: {Alard}, C., \& {Lupton}, R.~H. 1998, \apj, 503, 325

1162: 

1163: \bibitem[{{Astier} {et~al.}(2006){Astier}, {Guy}, {Regnault}, {Pain},

1164:   {Aubourg}, {Balam}, {Basa}, {Carlberg}, {Fabbro}, {Fouchez}, {Hook},

1165:   {Howell}, {Lafoux}, {Neill}, {Palanque-Delabrouille}, {Perrett}, {Pritchet},

1166:   {Rich}, {Sullivan}, {Taillet}, {Aldering}, {Antilogus}, {Arsenijevic},

1167:   {Balland}, {Baumont}, {Bronder}, {Courtois}, {Ellis}, {Filiol}, {Gon{\c

1168:   c}alves}, {Goobar}, {Guide}, {Hardin}, {Lusset}, {Lidman}, {McMahon},

1169:   {Mouchet}, {Mourao}, {Perlmutter}, {Ripoche}, {Tao}, \& {Walton}}]{astier06}

1170: {Astier}, P., {et~al.} 2006, \aap, 447, 31

1171: 

1172: \bibitem[{{Baade}(1926)}]{baade26}

1173: {Baade}, W. 1926, Astronomische Nachrichten, 228, 359

1174: 

1175: \bibitem[{{Barbon} {et~al.}(1979){Barbon}, {Ciatti}, \& {Rosino}}]{barbon79}

1176: {Barbon}, R., {Ciatti}, F., \& {Rosino}, L. 1979, \aap, 72, 287

1177: 

1178: \bibitem[{{Barlow} {et~al.}(2005){Barlow}, {Sugerman}, {Fabbri}, {Meixner},

1179:   {Fisher}, {Bowey}, {Panagia}, {Ercolano}, {Clayton}, {Cohen}, {Gledhill},

1180:   {Gordon}, {Tielens}, \& {Zijlstra}}]{barlow05}

1181: {Barlow}, M.~J., {et~al.} 2005, \apjl, 627, L113

1182: 

1183: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(2004)Baron, Nugent, Branch, \& Hauschildt}]{baron04}

1184: Baron, E., Nugent, P.~E., Branch, D., \& Hauschildt, P.~H. 2004, ApJ, 616, L91

1185: 

1186: \bibitem[{Baron {et~al.}(2003)Baron, Nugent, Branch, Hauschildt, Turatto, \&

1187:   Cappellaro}]{baron03}

1188: Baron, E., Nugent, P.~E., Branch, D., Hauschildt, P.~H., Turatto, M., \&

1189:   Cappellaro, E. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1199

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[{{Blondin} \& {Tonry}(2007)}]{blondin07}

1192: {Blondin}, S., \& {Tonry}, J.~L. 2007, \apj, 666, 1024

1193: 

1194: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1989){Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \&

1195:   {Mathis}}]{cardelli89}

1196: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245

1197: 

1198: \bibitem[{Dessart \& Hillier(2006)}]{dessart06}

1199: Dessart, L., \& Hillier, D.~J. 2006, A\&A, 447, 691

1200: 

1201: \bibitem[{Dessart {et~al.}(2008)Dessart, Blondin, Brown, Hicken, Hillier,

1202:   Holland, Immler, Kirshner, Milne, Modjaz, \& Roming}]{dessart08}

1203: Dessart, L., {et~al.} 2008, ApJ, 675, 644

1204: 

1205: \bibitem[{{Doggett} \& {Branch}(1985)}]{doggett85}

1206: {Doggett}, J.~B., \& {Branch}, D. 1985, \aj, 90, 2303

1207: 

1208: \bibitem[{{Draine}(2003)}]{draine03}

1209: Draine, B.~T. 2003, \araa, 41, 241

1210: 

1211: \bibitem[{Eastman {et~al.}(1996)Eastman, Schmidt, \& Kirshner}]{eastman96}

1212: Eastman, R.~G., Schmidt, B.~P., \& Kirshner, R. 1996, ApJ, 466, 911

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[{{Elias-Rosa} {et~al.}(2006){Elias-Rosa}, {Benetti}, {Cappellaro},

1215:   {Turatto}, {Mazzali}, {Patat}, {Meikle}, {Stehle}, {Pastorello}, {Pignata},

1216:   {Kotak}, {Harutyunyan}, {Altavilla}, {Navasardyan}, {Qiu}, {Salvo}, \&

1217:   {Hillebrandt}}]{elias-rosa06}

1218: {Elias-Rosa}, N., {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 369, 1880

1219: 

1220: \bibitem[{{Elias-Rosa} {et~al.}(2008){Elias-Rosa}, {Benetti}, {Turatto},

1221:   {Cappellaro}, {Valenti}, {Arkharov}, {Beckman}, {di Paola}, {Dolci},

1222:   {Filippenko}, {Foley}, {Krisciunas}, {Larionov}, {Li}, {Meikle},

1223:   {Pastorello}, {Valentini}, \& {Hillebrandt}}]{elias-rosa08}

1224: ---. 2008, \mnras, 384, 107

1225: 

1226: \bibitem[{Ellis {et~al.}(2008)Ellis, Sullivan, Nugent, Howell, Gal-Yam, Astier,

1227:   Balam, Balland, Basa, Carlberg, Conley, Fouchez, Guy, Hardin, Hook, Pain,

1228:   Perrett, Pritchet, \& Regnault}]{ellis08}

1229: Ellis, R.~S., {et~al.} 2008, ApJ, 674, 51

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[{{Faber} {et~al.}(2003){Faber}, {Phillips}, {Kibrick}, {Alcott},

1232:   {Allen}, {Burrous}, {Cantrall}, {Clarke}, {Coil}, {Cowley}, {Davis}, {Deich},

1233:   {Dietsch}, {Gilmore}, {Harper}, {Hilyard}, {Lewis}, {McVeigh}, {Newman},

1234:   {Osborne}, {Schiavon}, {Stover}, {Tucker}, {Wallace}, {Wei}, {Wirth}, \&

1235:   {Wright}}]{faber03}

1236: {Faber}, S.~M., {et~al.} 2003, in SPIE Proc., ed. M.~{Iye} \& A.~F.~M.

1237:   {Moorwood}, Vol. 4841, 1657

1238: 

1239: \bibitem[{{Filippenko}(1982)}]{filippenko82}

1240: {Filippenko}, A.~V. 1982, \pasp, 94, 715

1241: 

1242: \bibitem[{{Filippenko}(1997)}]{filippenko97}

1243: ---. 1997, \araa, 35, 309

1244: 

1245: \bibitem[{{Filippenko}(2005{\natexlab{a}})}]{filippenko05b}

1246: {Filippenko}, A.~V. 2005{\natexlab{a}}, in The Fate of the Most Massive Stars, 

1247:   ed. R.~{Humphreys} \& K.~{Stanek} (San Francisco: ASP, Conf. Ser. Vol. 332), 33

1248: 

1249: \bibitem[{{Filippenko}(2005{\natexlab{b}})}]{filippenko05}

1250: {Filippenko}, A.~V. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, in White Dwarfs: Cosmological and 

1251:   Galactic Probes, ed. E.~M. {Sion}, S.~{Vennes}, \& H.~L. {Shipman}

1252:   (Dordrecht: Springer), 97

1253: 

1254: \bibitem[{{Filippenko} {et~al.}(2001){Filippenko}, {Li}, {Treffers}, \&

1255:   {Modjaz}}]{filippenko01}

1256: {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Li}, W.~D., {Treffers}, R.~R., \& {Modjaz}, M. 2001, in

1257:   Small Telescope Astronomy on Global

1258:   Scales, ed. B.~{Paczy\'{n}ski}, W.-P. {Chen}, \& C.~{Lemme} (San Francisco:

1259:   ASP, Conf. Ser. Vol. 246), 121

1260: 

1261: \bibitem[{{Foley} {et~al.}(2008){Foley}, {Filippenko}, {Aguilera}, {Becker},

1262:   {Blondin}, {Challis}, {Clocchiatti}, {Covarrubias}, {Davis}, {Garnavich},

1263:   {Jha}, {Kirshner}, {Krisciunas}, {Leibundgut}, {Li}, {Matheson}, {Miceli},

1264:   {Miknaitis}, {Pignata}, {Rest}, {Riess}, {Schmidt}, {Smith}, {Sollerman},

1265:   {Spyromilio}, {Stubbs}, {Suntzeff}, {Tonry}, {Wood-Vasey}, \&

1266:   {Zenteno}}]{foley08}

1267: {Foley}, R.~J., {et~al.} 2008, ApJ, 684, 68

1268: 

1269: \bibitem[{{Foley} {et~al.}(2003){Foley}, {Papenkova}, {Swift}, {Filippenko},

1270:   {Li}, {Mazzali}, {Chornock}, {Leonard}, \& {Van Dyk}}]{foley03}

1271: ---. 2003, \pasp, 115, 1220

1272: 

1273: \bibitem[{{Gal-Yam} {et~al.}(2007){Gal-Yam}, {Cenko}, {Fox}, {Leonard}, {Moon},

1274:   {Sand}, \& {Soderberg}}]{gal-yam07cccp}

1275: {Gal-Yam}, A., {Cenko}, S.~B., {Fox}, D.~B., {Leonard}, D.~C., {Moon}, D.-S.,

1276:   {Sand}, D.~J., \& {Soderberg}, A.~M. 2007, in The

1277:   Multicoloured Landscape of Compact Objects and Their Explosive Origins, ed.

1278:   T.~{di Salvo}, et al. (New York: AIP, Conf. 924), 297

1279: 

1280: \bibitem[{{Ganeshalingam} {et~al.}(2001){Ganeshalingam}, {Modjaz}, \&

1281:   {Li}}]{ganeshalingam01}

1282: {Ganeshalingam}, M., {Modjaz}, M., \& {Li}, W.~D. 2001, \iaucirc, 7655, 1

1283: 

1284: \bibitem[{{Gezari} {et~al.}(2008){Gezari}, {Halpern}, {Grupe}, {Yuan},

1285:   {Quimby}, {McKay}, {Chamarro}, {Sisson}, {Akerlof}, {Wheeler}, {Brown},

1286:   {Cenko}, {Rau}, {Djordjevic}, \& {Terndrup}}]{gezari08}

1287: {Gezari}, S., {et~al.} 2008, in press (ArXiv:0808.2812)

1288: 

1289: \bibitem[{{Goobar}(2008)}]{goobar08}

1290: {Goobar}, A. 2008, submitted (ArXiv:0809.1094)

1291: 

1292: \bibitem[{{Goobar} \& {Perlmutter}(1995)}]{goobar95}

1293: {Goobar}, A., \& {Perlmutter}, S. 1995, \apj, 450, 14

1294: 

1295: \bibitem[{Hamuy(2005)}]{hamuy05}

1296: Hamuy, M. 2005, in Cosmic Explosions, ed. J.-M. {Marcaide} \& K.~W. 

1297: {Weiler} (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, IAU Col. 192), 535

1298: 

1299: \bibitem[{Hamuy \& Pinto(2002)}]{hamuy02}

1300: Hamuy, M., \& Pinto, P.~A. 2002, ApJ, 566, L63

1301: 

1302: \bibitem[{{Hamuy} {et~al.}(2001){Hamuy}, {Pinto}, {Maza}, {Suntzeff},

1303:   {Phillips}, {Eastman}, {Smith}, {Corbally}, {Burstein}, {Li}, {Ivanov},

1304:   {Moro-Martin}, {Strolger}, {de Souza}, {dos Anjos}, {Green}, {Pickering},

1305:   {Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Antezana}, {Wischnjewsky}, {Galaz}, {Roth}, {Persson}, \&

1306:   {Schommer}}]{hamuy01}

1307: {Hamuy}, M., {et~al.} 2001, \apj, 558, 615

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[{{Horne}(1986)}]{horne86}

1310: {Horne}, K. 1986, \pasp, 98, 609

1311: 

1312: \bibitem[{{Jiang} \& {Qiu}(2001)}]{jiang01}

1313: {Jiang}, X.~J., \& {Qiu}, Y.~L. 2001, \iaucirc, 7641, 3

1314: 

1315: \bibitem[{{Kaiser} {et~al.}(2002){Kaiser}, {Aussel}, {Burke}, {Boesgaard},

1316:   {Chambers}, {Chun}, {Heasley}, {Hodapp}, {Hunt}, {Jedicke}, {Jewitt},

1317:   {Kudritzki}, {Luppino}, {Maberry}, {Magnier}, {Monet}, {Onaka}, {Pickles},

1318:   {Rhoads}, {Simon}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Tholen}, {Tonry}, {Waterson}, \&

1319:   {Wick}}]{kaiser02}

1320: {Kaiser}, N., {et~al.} 2002, in SPIE Proc., ed. J.~A. {Tyson} \& S.~{Wolff},

1321:   Vol. 4836, 154

1322: 

1323: \bibitem[{{Kelly}(2007)}]{kelly07}

1324: {Kelly}, B.~C. 2007, \apj, 665, 1489

1325: 

1326: \bibitem[{Kirshner \& Kwan(1975)}]{kirshner75}

1327: Kirshner, R.~P., \& Kwan, J. 1975, ApJ, 197, 415

1328: 

1329: \bibitem[{{Kloehr} {et~al.}(2005){Kloehr}, {Muendlein}, {Li}, {Yamaoka}, \&

1330:   {Itagaki}}]{kloehr05}

1331: {Kloehr}, W., {Muendlein}, R., {Li}, W., {Yamaoka}, H., \& {Itagaki}, K. 2005,

1332:   \iaucirc, 8553, 1

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[{{Klotz} {et~al.}(2002){Klotz}, {Puckett}, {Langoussis}, {Wood-Vasey},

1335:   {Aldering}, {Nugent}, \& {Stephens}}]{klotz02}

1336: {Klotz}, A., {Puckett}, T., {Langoussis}, A., {Wood-Vasey}, W.~M., {Aldering},

1337:   G., {Nugent}, P., \& {Stephens}, R. 2002, \iaucirc, 7986, 1

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[{{Kowalski} {et~al.}(2008){Kowalski}, {Rubin}, {Aldering},

1340:   {Agostinho}, {Amadon}, {Amanullah}, {Balland}, {Barbary}, {Blanc}, {Challis},

1341:   {Conley}, {Connolly}, {Covarrubias}, {Dawson}, {Deustua}, {Ellis}, {Fabbro},

1342:   {Fadeyev}, {Fan}, {Farris}, {Folatelli}, {Frye}, {Garavini}, {Gates},

1343:   {Germany}, {Goldhaber}, {Goldman}, {Goobar}, {Groom}, {Haissinski}, {Hardin},

1344:   {Hook}, {Kent}, {Kim}, {Knop}, {Lidman}, {Linder}, {Mendez}, {Meyers},

1345:   {Miller}, {Moniez}, {Mourao}, {Newberg}, {Nobili}, {Nugent}, {Pain},

1346:   {Perdereau}, {Perlmutter}, {Phillips}, {Prasad}, {Quimby}, {Regnault},

1347:   {Rich}, {Rubenstein}, {Ruiz-Lapuente}, {Santos}, {Schaefer}, {Schommer},

1348:   {Smith}, {Soderberg}, {Spadafora}, {Strolger}, {Strovink}, {Suntzeff},

1349:   {Suzuki}, {Thomas}, {Walton}, {Wang}, {Wood-Vasey}, \& {Yun}}]{kowalski08}

1350: {Kowalski}, M., {et~al.} 2008, in press (ArXiv:0804.4142)

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[{{Krisciunas} {et~al.}(2007){Krisciunas}, {Garnavich}, {Stanishev},

1353:   {Suntzeff}, {Prieto}, {Espinoza}, {Gonzalez}, {Salvo}, {Elias de la Rosa},

1354:   {Smartt}, {Maund}, \& {Kudritzki}}]{krisciunas07}

1355: {Krisciunas}, K., {et~al.} 2007, \aj, 133, 58

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[{{Landolt}(1992)}]{landolt92}

1358: {Landolt}, A.~U. 1992, \aj, 104, 340

1359: 

1360: \bibitem[{Leonard {et~al.}(2003)Leonard, Kanbur, Ngeow, \& Tanvir}]{leonard03}

1361: Leonard, D.~C., Kanbur, S.~M., Ngeow, C.~C., \& Tanvir, N.~R. 2003, ApJ, 594,

1362:   247

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[{{Leonard} {et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{a}}){Leonard}, {Filippenko},

1365:   {Gates}, {Li}, {Eastman}, {Barth}, {Bus}, {Chornock}, {Coil}, {Frink},

1366:   {Grady}, {Harris}, {Malkan}, {Matheson}, {Quirrenbach}, \&

1367:   {Treffers}}]{leonard02em}

1368: {Leonard}, D.~C., {et~al.} 2002{\natexlab{a}}, \pasp, 114, 35

1369: 

1370: \bibitem[{{Leonard} {et~al.}(2002{\natexlab{b}}){Leonard}, {Filippenko}, {Li},

1371:   {Matheson}, {Kirshner}, {Chornock}, {Van Dyk}, {Berlind}, {Calkins},

1372:   {Challis}, {Garnavich}, {Jha}, \& {Mahdavi}}]{leonard02gi}

1373: ---. 2002{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 124, 2490

1374: 

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[{{Li}(1999{\natexlab{a}})}]{li99a}

1377: {Li}, W. 1999{\natexlab{a}}, \iaucirc, 7135, 1

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[{{Li}(1999{\natexlab{b}})}]{li99}

1380: ---. 1999{\natexlab{b}}, \iaucirc, 7294, 1

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[{{Li}(2002)}]{li02}

1383: ---. 2002, \iaucirc, 8005, 1

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[{{Li}(2003)}]{li03}

1386: ---. 2003, \iaucirc, 8184, 1

1387: 

1388: \bibitem[{{Li} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}}){Li}, {Fan}, {Qiu}, {Hu}, \&

1389:   {Schwartz}}]{li01a}

1390: {Li}, W., {Fan}, Y., {Qiu}, Y.~L., {Hu}, J.~Y., \& {Schwartz}, M.

1391:   2001{\natexlab{a}}, \iaucirc, 7591, 1

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[{{Li} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}}){Li}, {Filippenko}, {Gates},

1394:   {Chornock}, {Gal-Yam}, {Ofek}, {Leonard}, {Modjaz}, {Rich}, {Riess}, \&

1395:   {Treffers}}]{li01cx}

1396: {Li}, W., {et~al.} 2001{\natexlab{b}}, \pasp, 113, 1178

1397: 

1398: \bibitem[{Li {et~al.}(2007)Li, Wang, Dyk, Cuillandre, Foley, \&

1399:   Filippenko}]{li07}

1400: Li, W., Wang, X., Dyk, S. D.~V., Cuillandre, J.-C., Foley, R.~J., \&

1401:   Filippenko, A.~V. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1013

1402: 

1403: \bibitem[{{Llapasset}(2003)}]{llapasset03}

1404: {Llapasset}, J. 2003, \iaucirc, 8219, 2

1405: 

1406: \bibitem[{{Matheson} {et~al.}(2000){Matheson}, {Filippenko}, {Ho}, {Barth}, \&

1407:   {Leonard}}]{matheson00}

1408: {Matheson}, T., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Ho}, L.~C., {Barth}, A.~J., \& {Leonard},

1409:   D.~C. 2000, \aj, 120, 1499

1410: 

1411: \bibitem[{{Miller} {et~al.}(2008){Miller}, {Chornock}, {Perley},

1412:   {Ganeshalingam}, {Li}, {Butler}, {Bloom}, {Smith}, {Modjaz}, {Poznanski},

1413:   {Filippenko}, {Griffith}, {Shiode}, \& {Silverman}}]{miller08}

1414: {Miller}, A.~A., {et~al.} 2008, in press (ArXiv:0808.2193)

1415: 

1416: \bibitem[{Miller \& Stone(1993)}]{miller93}

1417: Miller, J.~S., \& Stone, R. P.~S. 1993, Lick Obs. Tech. Rep. 66,

1418:   (Santa Cruz: Lick Obs.)

1419: 

1420: \bibitem[{{Modjaz} \& {Li}(2001)}]{modjaz01b}

1421: {Modjaz}, M., \& {Li}, W.~D. 2001, \iaucirc, 7682, 1

1422: 

1423: \bibitem[{{Modjaz} {et~al.}(2001){Modjaz}, {Li}, {Filippenko}, {King},

1424:   {Leonard}, {Matheson}, {Treffers}, \& {Riess}}]{modjaz01}

1425: {Modjaz}, M., {Li}, W., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {King}, J.~Y., {Leonard}, D.~C.,

1426:   {Matheson}, T., {Treffers}, R.~R., \& {Riess}, A.~G. 2001, \pasp, 113, 308

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[{{Moro} \& {Munari}(2000)}]{moro00}

1429: {Moro}, D., \& {Munari}, U. 2000, \aaps, 147, 361

1430: 

1431: \bibitem[{{Nakano} {et~al.}(2001){Nakano}, {Itagaki}, {Li}, \&

1432:   {Schwartz}}]{nakano01}

1433: {Nakano}, S., {Itagaki}, K., {Li}, W.~D., \& {Schwartz}, M. 2001, \iaucirc,

1434:   7628, 2

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[{{Nakano} \& {Kushida}(1999)}]{nakano99}

1437: {Nakano}, S., \& {Kushida}, R. 1999, \iaucirc, 7329, 1

1438: 

1439: \bibitem[{{Nobili} \& {Goobar}(2008)}]{nobili08}

1440: {Nobili}, S., \& {Goobar}, A. 2008, \aap, 487, 19

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[{Nugent {et~al.}(2006)Nugent, Sullivan, Ellis, Gal-Yam, Leonard,

1443:   Howell, Astier, Carlberg, Conley, Fabbro, Fouchez, Neill, Pain, Perrett,

1444:   Pritchet, \& Regnault}]{nugent06}

1445: Nugent, P., {et~al.} 2006, ApJ, 645, 841

1446: 

1447: \bibitem[{{Ofek} {et~al.}(2007){Ofek}, {Cameron}, {Kasliwal}, {Gal-Yam}, {Rau},

1448:   {Kulkarni}, {Frail}, {Chandra}, {Cenko}, {Soderberg}, \& {Immler}}]{ofek07}

1449: {Ofek}, E.~O., {et~al.} 2007, \apjl, 659, L13

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[{{Oke} {et~al.}(1995){Oke}, {Cohen}, {Carr}, {Cromer}, {Dingizian},

1452:   {Harris}, {Labrecque}, {Lucinio}, {Schaal}, {Epps}, \& {Miller}}]{oke95}

1453: {Oke}, J.~B., {et~al.} 1995, \pasp, 107, 375

1454: 

1455: \bibitem[{{Papenkova} \& {Li}(2000)}]{papenkova00}

1456: {Papenkova}, M., \& {Li}, W.~D. 2000, \iaucirc, 7406, 1

1457: 

1458: \bibitem[{{Pastorello} {et~al.}(2006){Pastorello}, {Sauer}, {Taubenberger},

1459:   {Mazzali}, {Nomoto}, {Kawabata}, {Benetti}, {Elias-Rosa}, {Harutyunyan},

1460:   {Navasardyan}, {Zampieri}, {Iijima}, {Botticella}, {di Rico}, {Del Principe},

1461:   {Dolci}, {Gagliardi}, {Ragni}, \& {Valentini}}]{pastorello06}

1462: {Pastorello}, A., {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 370, 1752

1463: 

1464: \bibitem[{{Phillips} \& {Davis}(1995)}]{phillips95}

1465: {Phillips}, A.~C., \& {Davis}, L.~E. 1995, in Astronomical Data Analysis 

1466:   Software and Systems IV, ed. R.~A. {Shaw}, H.~E. {Payne}, \& J.~J.~E. {Hayes} 

1467:  (San Francisco: ASP, Conf. Ser. Vol. 77), 297

1468: 

1469: \bibitem[{{Poznanski} {et~al.}(2002){Poznanski}, {Gal-Yam}, {Maoz},

1470:   {Filippenko}, {Leonard}, \& {Matheson}}]{poznanski02}

1471: {Poznanski}, D., {Gal-Yam}, A., {Maoz}, D., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Leonard},

1472:   D.~C., \& {Matheson}, T. 2002, \pasp, 114, 833

1473: 

1474: \bibitem[{{Pozzo} {et~al.}(2006){Pozzo}, {Meikle}, {Rayner}, {Joseph},

1475:   {Filippenko}, {Foley}, {Li}, {Mattila}, \& {Sollerman}}]{pozzo06}

1476: {Pozzo}, M., {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 368, 1169

1477: 

1478: \bibitem[{{Quimby} {et~al.}(2007){Quimby}, {Aldering}, {Wheeler},

1479:   {H{\"o}flich}, {Akerlof}, \& {Rykoff}}]{quimby07}

1480: {Quimby}, R.~M., {Aldering}, G., {Wheeler}, J.~C., {H{\"o}flich}, P.,

1481:   {Akerlof}, C.~W., \& {Rykoff}, E.~S. 2007, \apjl, 668, L99

1482: 

1483: \bibitem[{{Rich}(2005)}]{rich05}

1484: {Rich}, D. 2005, \iaucirc, 8500, 2

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[{{Riess} {et~al.}(2007){Riess}, {Strolger}, {Casertano}, {Ferguson},

1487:   {Mobasher}, {Gold}, {Challis}, {Filippenko}, {Jha}, {Li}, {Tonry}, {Foley},

1488:   {Kirshner}, {Dickinson}, {MacDonald}, {Eisenstein}, {Livio}, {Younger}, {Xu},

1489:   {Dahl{\'e}n}, \& {Stern}}]{riess07}

1490: {Riess}, A.~G., {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 659, 98

1491: 

1492: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&

1493:   {Davis}}]{schlegel98}

1494: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1495: 

1496: \bibitem[{{Schlegel}(1996)}]{schlegel96}

1497: {Schlegel}, E.~M. 1996, \aj, 111, 1660

1498: 

1499: \bibitem[{{Schmidt} {et~al.}(1998){Schmidt}, {Suntzeff}, {Phillips},

1500:   {Schommer}, {Clocchiatti}, {Kirshner}, {Garnavich}, {Challis}, {Leibundgut},

1501:   {Spyromilio}, {Riess}, {Filippenko}, {Hamuy}, {Smith}, {Hogan}, {Stubbs},

1502:   {Diercks}, {Reiss}, {Gilliland}, {Tonry}, {Maza}, {Dressler}, {Walsh}, \&

1503:   {Ciardullo}}]{schmidt98}

1504: {Schmidt}, B.~P., {et~al.} 1998, \apj, 507, 46

1505: 

1506: \bibitem[{{Singer} \& {Li}(2004)}]{singer04}

1507: {Singer}, D., \& {Li}, W. 2004, \iaucirc, 8387, 1

1508: 

1509: \bibitem[{{Smartt} {et~al.}(2008){Smartt}, {Eldridge}, {Crockett}, \&

1510:   {Maund}}]{smartt08}

1511: {Smartt}, S.~J., {Eldridge}, J.~J., {Crockett}, R.~M., \& {Maund}, J.~R. 2008,

1512:   submitted (ArXiv:0809.0403)

1513: 

1514: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2008){Smith}, {Chornock}, {Li}, {Ganeshalingam},

1515:   {Silverman}, {Foley}, {Filippenko}, \& {Barth}}]{smith08tf}

1516: {Smith}, N., {Chornock}, R., {Li}, W., {Ganeshalingam}, M., {Silverman}, J.~M.,

1517:   {Foley}, R.~J., {Filippenko}, A.~V., \& {Barth}, A.~J. 2008, \apj, 686,

1518:   467

1519: 

1520: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2007){Smith}, {Li}, {Foley}, {Wheeler}, {Pooley},

1521:   {Chornock}, {Filippenko}, {Silverman}, {Quimby}, {Bloom}, \&

1522:   {Hansen}}]{smith07}

1523: {Smith}, N., {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 666, 1116

1524: 

1525: \bibitem[{{Sofue} \& {Rubin}(2001)}]{sofue01}

1526: {Sofue}, Y., \& {Rubin}, V. 2001, \araa, 39, 137

1527: 

1528: \bibitem[{{Stritzinger} {et~al.}(2002){Stritzinger}, {Hamuy}, {Suntzeff},

1529:   {Smith}, {Phillips}, {Maza}, {Strolger}, {Antezana}, {Gonz{\'a}lez},

1530:   {Wischnjewsky}, {Candia}, {Espinoza}, {Gonz{\'a}lez}, {Stubbs}, {Becker},

1531:   {Rubenstein}, \& {Galaz}}]{stritzinger02}

1532: {Stritzinger}, M., {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 124, 2100

1533: 

1534: \bibitem[{{Sullivan} {et~al.}(2006){Sullivan}, {Howell}, {Perrett}, {Nugent},

1535:   {Astier}, {Aubourg}, {Balam}, {Basa}, {Carlberg}, {Conley}, {Fabbro},

1536:   {Fouchez}, {Guy}, {Hook}, {Lafoux}, {Neill}, {Pain}, {Palanque-Delabrouille},

1537:   {Pritchet}, {Regnault}, {Rich}, {Taillet}, {Aldering}, {Baumont}, {Bronder},

1538:   {Filiol}, {Knop}, {Perlmutter}, \& {Tao}}]{sullivan06a}

1539: {Sullivan}, M., {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 960

1540: 

1541: \bibitem[{{Tonry} {et~al.}(2000){Tonry}, {Blakeslee}, {Ajhar}, \&

1542:   {Dressler}}]{tonry00}

1543: {Tonry}, J.~L., {Blakeslee}, J.~P., {Ajhar}, E.~A., \& {Dressler}, A. 2000,

1544:   \apj, 530, 625

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[{{Tonry} \& {Davis}(1979)}]{tonry79}

1547: {Tonry}, J., \& {Davis}, M. 1979, \aj, 84, 1511

1548: 

1549: \bibitem[{{Wade} \& {Horne}(1988)}]{wade88}

1550: {Wade}, R.~A., \& {Horne}, K. 1988, \apj, 324, 411

1551: 

1552: \bibitem[{{Wang}(2005)}]{wang05}

1553: {Wang}, L. 2005, \apjl, 635, L33

1554: 

1555: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(2008){Wang}, {Li}, {Filippenko}, {Krisciunas},

1556:   {Suntzeff}, {Li}, {Zhang}, {Deng}, {Foley}, {Ganeshalingam}, {Li}, {Lou},

1557:   {Qiu}, {Shang}, {Silverman}, {Zhang}, \& {Zhang}}]{wang08}

1558: {Wang}, X., {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 675, 626

1559: 

1560: \bibitem[{{Weiner} {et~al.}(2005){Weiner}, {Phillips}, {Faber}, {Willmer},

1561:   {Vogt}, {Simard}, {Gebhardt}, {Im}, {Koo}, {Sarajedini}, {Wu}, {Forbes},

1562:   {Gronwall}, {Groth}, {Illingworth}, {Kron}, {Rhodes}, {Szalay}, \&

1563:   {Takamiya}}]{weiner05}

1564: {Weiner}, B.~J., {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 620, 595

1565: 

1566: \bibitem[{{Wood-Vasey} {et~al.}(2007){Wood-Vasey}, {Miknaitis}, {Stubbs},

1567:   {Jha}, {Riess}, {Garnavich}, {Kirshner}, {Aguilera}, {Becker}, {Blackman},

1568:   {Blondin}, {Challis}, {Clocchiatti}, {Conley}, {Covarrubias}, {Davis},

1569:   {Filippenko}, {Foley}, {Garg}, {Hicken}, {Krisciunas}, {Leibundgut}, {Li},

1570:   {Matheson}, {Miceli}, {Narayan}, {Pignata}, {Prieto}, {Rest}, {Salvo},

1571:   {Schmidt}, {Smith}, {Sollerman}, {Spyromilio}, {Tonry}, {Suntzeff}, \&

1572:   {Zenteno}}]{wood-vasey07}

1573: {Wood-Vasey}, W.~M., {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 666, 694

1574: 

1575: \bibitem[{{Yu} \& {Li}(2000)}]{yu00}

1576: {Yu}, C., \& {Li}, W.~D. 2000, \iaucirc, 7476, 1

1577: 

1578: \bibitem[{{Zwitter} {et~al.}(2004){Zwitter}, {Munari}, \&

1579:   {Moretti}}]{zwitter04}

1580: {Zwitter}, T., {Munari}, U., \& {Moretti}, S. 2004, \iaucirc, 8413, 1

1581: 

1582: \end{thebibliography}

1583: 

1584: 

1585: \end{document}

1586: