1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \slugcomment{Preprint DAMTP-2001-96; April 18th, 2002}
4: \shorttitle{Modified Median Statistics and Type Ia Supernova Data}
5: \shortauthors{P.P. Avelino, C.J.A.P. Martins and P. Pinto}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Modified Median Statistics and Type Ia Supernova Data}
9:
10: \author{P.P. Avelino\altaffilmark{1}, C.J.A.P. Martins\altaffilmark{2,3}
11: and P. Pinto\altaffilmark{1}}
12: \affil{Centro de Astrof\'{\i}sica da Universidade do Porto,\\
13: Rua das Estrelas s/n, 4150-762 Porto, Portugal}
14:
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Dep. de F{\' \i}sica da Faculdade de Ci\^encias da
16: Univ. do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre 687, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal.
17: Email: pedro\,@\,astro.up.pt}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
19: Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge,
20: Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom.
21: Email: C.J.A.P.Martins\,@\,damtp.cam.ac.uk}
22: \altaffiltext{3}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris,
23: 98 bis Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: The median statistic has recently been discussed by Gott \textit{et al.}
27: as a more reliable alternative to the standard $\chi^2$ likelihood
28: analysis, in the sense of requiring fewer assumptions about the data
29: and being almost as constraining.
30: We apply this statistic to the currently available combined
31: dataset of 92 distant type Ia supernovae, and also to a mock SNAP-class
32: dataset. We find that the performances of the modified median and $\chi^2$
33: statistics are comparable, particularly in the latter case.
34: We further extend the work of Gott \textit{et al.} by modifying the median
35: statistic to account for the number and size of sequences of consecutive
36: points above or below the median. We also comment on how the performance
37: of the statistic depends on the choice of free parameters that one is
38: estimating.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{Cosmology; data analysis; statistical methods; type Ia supernovae}
42:
43: \section{Introduction}
44:
45: In recent work \citet{Gott:2000mv} have argued, through
46: several convincing examples, that the median statistic is a reliable
47: alternative to the usual $\chi^2$ likelihood analysis. Even though it
48: usually has the caveat of not being as constraining (for the same data set),
49: it has the strong advantage of requiring much weaker assumptions about the
50: dataset itself and its errors. Furthermore, it is also less vulnerable than
51: the mean to the presence of bad data, such as when `outliers' exist.
52: Hence, if nothing else, median statistics can be useful for
53: the early stages of a data analysis pipeline, when one is still trying
54: to put together evidence that may justify the use of stronger hypotheses
55: on the dataset.
56:
57: In this work, we apply the median statistic to the combined dataset of
58: 92 type Ia supernovae taken from the Supernova Cosmology Project
59: (SCP) \citep{Perlmutter:1998np} and the High-z Supernova Search
60: Team (HzST) \citep{Riess:1998cb}\footnote{Note that in
61: \protect \citep{Gott:2000mv} median statistics was only separately applied to
62: earlier versions of each dataset.}. This is a particularly relevant example,
63: since the current data set is still fairly small. Furthermore, the
64: physics of supernova explosions is not at all well known, and hence the
65: possible presence of outliers in the available data is a particular concern.
66:
67: We also apply our results to a SNAP-class \citep{Nugent:2000vs,Weller:2001gf}
68: simulated dataset. We further extend the analysis of \citet{Gott:2000mv}
69: by considering simple modifications of the median statistic which account
70: for the number and size of sequences of consecutive points above or below
71: the median (to which the standard median statistic is `blind'). We discuss
72: the dependence of the performance of
73: the statistic on the choice of free parameters that one is estimating and
74: we find that the median statistic can be competitive with the standard
75: $\chi^2$ analysis, provided one knows the Hubble parameter
76: $H_0$ (or equivalently the absolute magnitude of a standard type Ia
77: supernova).
78:
79: The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we
80: briefly recall the tools necessary to carry out the estimation of the
81: present day values of the cosmological parameters $\Omega_m$ and
82: $\Omega_\Lambda$ from a type Ia
83: supernova dataset. In Section 3 we introduce the median statistic
84: as a data analysis method and motivate some simple modifications thereof.
85: We then present our results in Section 4, and finally in
86: Section 5 we draw some conclusions and discuss possible further
87: improvements.
88:
89: \section{Cosmological parameters from type Ia supernovae}
90:
91: Following the release of the results from the Supernova Cosmology
92: Project (SCP) \citep{Perlmutter:1998np} and the High-z Supernova Search Team
93: (HzST) \citep{Riess:1998cb}, which altogether include some 100 supernovae,
94: there has been an increased effort towards the parameterisation of the energy
95: content of the Universe using Type Ia Supernovae \citep{Weller:2001gf}.
96:
97: The currently available data, when combined with CMB
98: results \citep{Jaffe:2000tx}
99: indicates that about one third of the critical energy density in the
100: Universe is in the form of ordinary matter (and here we include the classic
101: dark matter), while the remaining two thirds are in the form of a so-called
102: dark energy component, the exact form of which is yet
103: unknown. The cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is arguably the simplest
104: candidate for this dark energy \citep{Bean:2001xy}, though there are various
105: other contenders, from frustrated topological defects \citep{Bucher:1998mh}
106: to a time varying cosmological constant \citep{ratra1,ratra2,ratra3,waga},
107: in particular what is commonly called
108: quintessence \citep{Caldwell:1998ii,Wang:1999fa}.
109: The main problem associated with the cosmological
110: constant is that theoretical predictions of its value are many orders of
111: magnitude off from the experimental results \citep{carroll}. On the other hand,
112: quintessence may suffer from considerable `coincidence' problems.
113:
114: Aiming to help settling the question of the constitution of dark energy, the
115: SNAP (Supernova Acceleration Probe) \citep{Nugent:2000vs}
116: satellite was recently proposed. Its goal is to obtain a supernova dataset
117: more than one order of magnitude larger than currently available datasets,
118: with much-improved control over systematic errors,
119: to redshifts up to about $z \simeq 1.7$.
120: Even though SNAP results are still years away, we can of course
121: simulate the expected results, and thus forecast the impact of this improved
122: dataset on the constraints on the energy density and equation of state of
123: dark energy that permeates the Universe \citep{Weller:2001gf}.
124:
125: As usual, the parameter fit is done through the luminosity distance $d_L$,
126: defined as
127: \begin{equation}
128: {\mathcal F} = \frac{{\mathcal L}}{4\pi d_L{}^2}\,, \label{flux}
129: \end{equation}
130: where ${\mathcal L}$ is the intrinsic luminosity of the source and
131: ${\mathcal F}$ the measured flux. From the Friedmann--Robertson--Walker
132: metric it follows that this distance is given,
133: as a function of redshift $z$, by
134: \begin{equation}
135: d_L = \frac{c(1 + z)}{H_0 \sqrt{|\Omega_k|}}\ S(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|} \int _0^z
136: (\Omega_m(z' + 1)^3 + \Omega_{\Lambda} + (z' + 1)^2
137: \Omega_k)^{-\frac{1}{2}}dz')\,, \label{ludist}
138: \end{equation}
139: where $\Omega_k = 1 - \Omega_m - \Omega_{\Lambda}$, and the function $S$
140: is defined as
141: \begin{equation}
142: S(x) = \left\{
143: \begin{array}{ll}
144: \sin x, & \Omega_k < 0 \\
145: x, & \Omega_k = 0 \\
146: \sinh x, & \Omega_k > 0
147: \end{array} \right.\,.\label{curvature}
148: \end{equation}
149:
150: The apparent magnitude $m$ of a supernova (a parameter more often used than
151: the measured flux ${\mathcal F}$, to which it is related) at a given redshift
152: is then given by
153: \begin{equation}
154: m = M + 5\log \left(\frac{d_L}{{\rm {Mpc}}}\right) + 25\,, \label{mags}
155: \end{equation}
156: $M$ being the absolute magnitude of the supernova (related to its
157: intrinsic luminosity ${\mathcal L}$).
158: Following Wang \citep{Wang:1999bz}, we use results from both the SCP
159: and HzST even though their published datasets differ in presentation.
160: We define the distance modulus
161: \begin{equation}
162: \mu _0 = 5\log \left(\frac{d_L}{{\rm {Mpc}}}\right) + 25\,, \label{distmod}
163: \end{equation}
164: as presented in the HzST results comprising 50 supernovae.
165: Comparatively, the SCP
166: published the estimated effective {\it B}-band magnitude
167: $m_b^{\textrm{eff}}$ for 60 supernovae which relates to the HzST results
168: through
169: \begin{equation}
170: \label{m-mu}
171: m_B^{\textrm{eff}} = M_B + \mu _0\,,
172: \end{equation}
173: where $M_B$ is the peak {\it B}-band absolute magnitude of a standard
174: type Ia supernova.
175: The published results of the SCP and HzST groups have 18 common supernovae,
176: 16 of which are from the Cal\'an--Tololo Survey data \citep{Phillips:1999vh}.
177: If we calculate $M_B$
178: by comparing results for these 18 supernovae (using the results from the HzST
179: estimated by means of the MLCS method) we get
180: \begin{equation}
181: M_B = m_B^{\textrm{eff}} - \mu _0 = -19.33\pm 0.25\,.\label{meff}
182: \end{equation}
183: Assuming the value $M_B = -19.33$ for the absolute luminosity, we convert the
184: SCP results to distance modulus using eqn. (\ref{m-mu}). We then add 42 of
185: these supernovae to the dataset from HzST, leaving out the 18 already present,
186: thus making a total of 92 supernovas.
187:
188: As for future results, our simulation assumes a specific set of parameters
189: based on the results from current available measurements
190: \begin{equation}
191: \Omega_m = 0.3,\quad \Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7,\quad H_0 = 65.2\ {\rm km\
192: s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}.
193: \end{equation}
194: We have simulated a supernova dataset with $\mu_0$
195: drawn from a Gaussian distribution with an
196: average computed from the above parameters and
197: $\sigma_{\mu_0} = 0.15$ standard
198: deviation, divided in bins with similar characteristics to those of SNAP
199: projections, as described in Table \ref{tabsnap}.
200:
201: \begin{table}
202: \caption{\label{tabsnap}Distribution of type Ia supernovae
203: by redshift bins in the mock SNAP-class simulated dataset.}
204: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
205: Min. redshift & Max. redshift & Number of SNe \\
206: \hline
207: 0.0 & 0.2 & 50 \\
208: 0.2 & 1.2 & 1800 \\
209: 1.2 & 1.4 & 50 \\
210: 1.4 & 1.7 & 15 \\
211: \end{tabular}
212: \end{table}
213:
214: \section{Standard median statistics, and how to improve it}
215:
216: Type Ia supernova data analysis is usually carried out using a $\chi^2$
217: analysis. Here, however, we shall describe median statistics as an alternative
218: analysis method, and then propose and motivate some simple
219: modifications of it and study the constraints which can be thus obtained.
220: Rigorous descriptions of the standard median statistic can be found in most
221: good statistics textbooks. For a more detailed review emphasizing
222: some aspects relevant to astrophysics see \citep{Gott:2000mv}.
223:
224: Recall that a $\chi^2$ statistical treatment requires that four hypothesis
225: be met, namely (1) that the experimental results are statistically independent;
226: (2) that there are no systematic errors present; (3) that the experimental
227: errors follow a Gaussian distribution; and (4) that the standard deviation of
228: these errors is known.
229:
230: The fewer assumptions one needs to make about a given dataset,
231: the higher will be the confidence in the results derived from it. It turns out
232: that keeping only assumptions (1) and (2) and relaxing the others one
233: can still make quite strong statements.
234: Assuming that the experimental results are statistically independent and that
235: there were no systematic errors made, one expects that upon performing a
236: large number of measurements approximately half of the values obtained
237: will be above the correct mean value (the other half being below it).
238: In the limit of an infinite number of measurements the middle value is,
239: by definition, the correct mean value.\footnote{Though strictly speaking
240: one should keep in mind that one can construct distributions that are
241: pathological enough to violate this.}
242:
243: If each measurement is statistically independent, and with no assumptions
244: about the probability density function (PDF) or standard deviation of the
245: errors, there is a $50 \%$ chance that each measurement will be above (or
246: below) the true median value of the distribution.
247: So, if we perform $n$ measurements, the probability
248: that $k$ of them will be above (or below) the median is simply given by
249: the binomial distribution,
250: \begin{equation}
251: P(k) = \frac{2^{-n}n!}{k!\ (n - k)!}\,.\label{binom}
252: \end{equation}
253: If we take $n$ measurements $M_n$ ordered from the smallest to the largest,
254: in such a way that $M_{i + 1} > M_i$, the probability of finding the median
255: between the measurements $M_i$ and $M_{i + 1}$ is again
256: \begin{equation}
257: P(i) = \frac{2^{-n}n!}{i!\ (n - i)!} \,, \label{probs}
258: \end{equation}
259: where we suppose $M_0 = - \infty$ and $M_{n + 1} = + \infty$.
260:
261: Given a Hubble diagram with the experimental results plotted against a
262: specific set of cosmological parameters,
263: \begin{equation}
264: \label{m_teo}
265: \mu _0(z) = 5 \log \left(\frac{d_L(z, H_0, \Omega_m,
266: \Omega_\Lambda)}{{\rm {Mpc}}}\right) + 25\,,
267: \end{equation}
268: the relative likelihood associated with that set of parameters can be
269: simply computed by counting the number of points above (or below) the
270: expected curve and using eqn. (\ref{binom}).
271: When assuming Gaussian errors using a $\chi^2$ statistical treatment
272: we benefit from the fact that doing so the
273: precision increases as $n^{-1/2}$, where $n$ is number of measurements.
274: Nonetheless, one can show \citep{Gott:2000mv} that with median statistics, and
275: relaxing assumptions (3) and (4), this result still holds.
276:
277: It should be stressed that even though there is presently no evidence that
278: supernova luminosity errors are not Gaussian, calibrated light-curves are most
279: likely not Gaussian distributed. There are in fact indications that some
280: outliers are not well calibrated with the current methods of luminosity-curve
281: calibration \footnote{It is noteworthy that the use of different methods of
282: luminosity-curve normalisation carries an uncertainty of about
283: $\Delta m\sim 0.15$ magnitudes.}.
284: Median statistics are not as susceptible to these outliers as the more classic
285: $\chi^2$ analysis. \citet{Gott:2000mv} provide various
286: examples of how just one or very
287: few `fluke' data points could seriously distort a $\chi^2$ analysis,
288: and of why median statistics are much less vulnerable to such effects.
289:
290: On the other hand, one should be wary of the fact that when
291: computing probabilities, the median statistic only
292: accounts for the number of experimental points above or below the expected
293: value. It does not differentiate between the various ways in which these
294: points could be distributed. Suppose that one has 10 magnitude \textit{versus}
295: redshift supernova measurements ordered by increasing redshift. A binomial
296: distribution associates a probability to the case where the first five
297: supernovae are brighter than expected and the last five fainter, equal to the
298: case where the first is brighter, the second fainter, the third brighter, the
299: fourth fainter and so forth until the tenth. These two cases should not be
300: indistinct since the first could turn out to be a terrible fit to the
301: data that happened to have exactly half of its points above and the other half
302: below it \footnote{It is a simple example to consider a horizontal
303: swarm of data points crossed by an almost vertical line through the middle,
304: leaving half the points in each side.}.
305:
306: Note that this `sequence blindness' problem also exists, to some extent,
307: for the $\chi^2$ statistic. However, the crucial difference is that in this
308: case the error bars are know, which substantially attenuates the problem.
309:
310: In order to improve the median statistic we will consider some adjustments to
311: its theoretical framework. Instead of just counting the number of data
312: points above or
313: below the model prediction, we also take into account (a) the size of
314: the largest contiguous
315: sequence found above or below the model prediction or (b) the number of
316: sequences obtained. With either of these we expect to more explicitly
317: account for the way in which the model under consideration intersects the
318: experimental data.
319:
320: Let us be more specific about the modifications to the standard median
321: statistic that we are presently proposing. Consider a random variable,
322: $X$, with a probability distribution with median $M$ and a number, $N$,
323: of realizations of that variable. Assume for the sake of illustration the
324: following result of $N=10$ realizations of the variable $X$
325: \begin{equation}
326: (-,+,+,-,+,+,+,-,-,+)
327: \end{equation}
328: where a $+(-)$ means that the particular realization ($X_i$ where $i$ can
329: take any value between $1$ and $N$) of the variable $X$ is above
330: (below) the median of the distribution. In this particular case we can
331: see that there are $6$ sequences the largest of which has $3$ elements
332: $(+,+,+)$. We considered the probability, $P(k,N_s)$ of having at the
333: same time $k$ measurements above (or below) the median and a number, $N_s$,
334: of sequences using a Monte Carlo simulation. We have also considered the
335: probability $P(k,N_l)$ where in this case $N_l$ means the size of the
336: largest sequence. It is also important to refer that in our particular
337: application we consider that the measurements are naturally ordered by
338: increasing redshift.
339:
340: Through a simple Monte Carlo simulation we compute the probabilities
341: $P(k,N_s)$ and $P(k,N_l)$ considering the number of data points
342: above or below the model prediction,
343: as well as the required sequence counting for each of
344: these two alternatives
345: (a) and (b). As we'll show below, these two alterations slightly
346: improve the constraining process. We will also find that the performance of
347: median statistic (and its modifications) strongly depends on the choice of
348: the parameters being fitted for, due to reasons that will become apparent
349: in the discussion.
350:
351: \section{Results}
352:
353: We now proceed to apply median and modified median
354: statistics to the current and SNAP supernova
355: datasets, and present confidence regions for the present day values of
356: the cosmological parameters $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$.
357: We also compare our results with the usual $\chi^2$ analysis.
358:
359: \subsection{Standard median statistics}
360:
361: Results for the current supernova data set, using standard median and
362: $\chi^2$ statistics are shown in Fig. \ref{fig1} \footnote{This
363: updates the results of \citet{Gott:2000mv}, which only analysed
364: the results of the two supernova groups separately.}.
365: Here we assume the knowledge of the Hubble's constant, which we take to be
366: $H_0 = 65.2\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$, in
367: agreement with \citet{Riess:1998cb}.
368:
369: In a $\chi^2$ analysis it would be standard procedure to integrate over the
370: Hubble parameter,
371: \begin{equation}
372: P(\Omega_m, \Omega_\Lambda) = \int P(\Omega_m, \Omega_\Lambda, H_0) dH_0,
373: \end{equation}
374: but that is not the case with standard median statistics. In fact
375: possibly the main
376: problem with this method is its inability to cope very well with a
377: multi-dimensional fit specially if it depends on several parameters.
378: Clearly the Hubble parameter plays a very important part in this
379: analysis, and a good knowledge of it is necessary to obtain good results.
380: The factor $- 5\log H_0$, present in the distance modulus definition as an
381: additive constant, can move the zero-redshift
382: point up or down the magnitude scale leaving otherwise the curve
383: unaffected. Recall that the supernovae distance scale depends on
384: the Large Magellanic Cloud's distance modulus, and indeed this is
385: the largest source of systematic error.
386:
387: We note that given a sufficient number of local supernovae
388: it is possible to calibrate the value of $H_0$ since when $z \ll 1$ the
389: distance modulus is simply given by
390: \begin{equation}
391: \mu _0= 5\log \frac{cz}{H_0} + 25\,,
392: \end{equation}
393: independently of the other cosmological parameters. In this way the value
394: $H_0 = 65.2 \pm 1.3\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$ (only the statistical error
395: is included) was found by HzST \citep{Riess:1998cb} which is in agreement
396: with the HST Key Project result \citep{Freedman:1999wh}.
397:
398: As expected, we find a somewhat larger confidence region in the case of
399: median statistics. Nevertheless, we can still exclude a
400: Universe with a vanishing cosmological constant with more than $99 \%$
401: confidence.
402: Similarly, the confidence region is above the
403: $q_0 = \Omega_m/2-\Omega_\Lambda = 0$ line that separates an
404: accelerated expansion of the Universe from a decelerating one.
405:
406: Fig. \ref{fig2} shows an analogous analysis but now using the SNAP
407: simulated results; again we assume the knowledge of the present day
408: value of the Hubble parameter $H_0$.
409: As expected, both statistics
410: can now accurately pin down a `degeneracy axis' but the error bars within
411: this axis are considerably larger for median statistics.
412:
413: \subsection{Modified median statistics}
414:
415: So far we have done the analysis using the standard median statistics.
416: We now consider the effect of the modifications which we described in
417: the in order to take into consideration
418: (a) the largest sequence or (b) the number of sequences obtained.
419: We shall see that
420: these modifications allow us to slightly improve the constraints on
421: the parameters being estimated.
422:
423: Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the results of
424: analysing a SNAP-class mock dataset using median statistics modified
425: to include either of the two effects (a) or (b).
426:
427: We can see that either modification seems to be
428: more constraining than standard median statistics, as it reduces the
429: error bars within the above-mentioned `degeneracy axis'.
430: This was expected, for the reasons already pointed out above: a fit
431: where points alternate above and below a theoretical line should in
432: principle be better than one where there are long continuous sequences
433: either above or below it.
434:
435: As one varies the present day values of the cosmological matter and
436: vacuum densities, $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, the luminosity
437: versus redshift curves also change. As a result of this tilting,
438: some of these curves will mostly be above (or below)
439: the data points at high redshift.
440: A $\chi^2$ analysis
441: will immediately disfavour these models. On the other hand, in the case of
442: the standard median, many such models which can `compensate' for this by
443: having a fair amount of points at lower redshift below the data points will
444: still survive. However, if one accounts for the presence of sequences and
445: reduces the likelihood of any model where such sequences are found,
446: then one will be able to reduce the range of allowed models. We have verified
447: that the performance of the modified median statistics upon integration
448: over the Hubble parameter is significantly better than that of standard
449: median statistic but still not competitive with the $\chi^2$ analysis.
450:
451: We also note that the gain from either of the modifications is fairly similar.
452: Of course we could also implement them together if
453: desired. One would obtain a further (slight) improvement, at the expense
454: of having to deal with a somewhat more complicated statistic.
455:
456: \subsection{The flat case}
457:
458: Most inflationary models predict
459: a flat Universe, and this seems to be confirmed by recent
460: results from CMB anisotropy measurements \citep{Jaffe:2000tx}.
461: Using this prior, the precision of the fits is quite substantially
462: increased, as we'll be fitting for a single parameter.
463: This can already be seen in Figs.
464: \ref{fig1}\textendash\ref{fig3} where the diagonal line that
465: intersects the confidence regions represents the combinations of the
466: cosmological parameters $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$ which correspond
467: to a flat universe.
468:
469: In the case of a flat universe the modifications we made to median
470: statistics do not significantly improve
471: the constraints on $\Omega_m-\Omega_\Lambda$ plane obtained using
472: the conventional median analysis and so we'll restrict ourselves to the
473: standard case.
474:
475: In Fig. \ref{fig4} we show results obtained for both datasets through the
476: methods previously presented, assuming a flat universe prior using the
477: conventional median statistic and the $\chi^2$ statistic.
478: We present these results in a more convenient form
479: in table \ref{median_1D_results}.
480:
481: For a flat Universe we obtain $\Omega_m = 0.29^{+0.03}_{-0.10}$ (not including
482: the uncertainty in the Hubble parameter) using currently available
483: supernovae and simple median statistics.
484: For these 92 supernovae the median statistic is marginally less competitive
485: than the $\chi^2$ statistic and one notices that the median results are
486: slightly skewed towards low values of $\Omega_m$. Nevertheless the $90 \%$
487: confidence upper limit for $\Omega_m$ is slightly lower in the case of
488: median statistics and the confidence intervals still overlap nicely.
489:
490: Clearly the SNAP results are expected to significantly improve the
491: constraints on the energy density of the Universe. Note that the results
492: obtained with median statistics are almost indistinguishable from those
493: obtained with the standard $\chi^2$ analysis in this case.
494:
495: This analysis clearly show that the median and the
496: standard $\chi^2$ statistics have quite similar performances if the
497: assumptions about a Gaussian distribution for the errors and the
498: estimate of the standard deviations are correct. If this is not the
499: case, then obviously the results obtained with the median statistic are
500: the more reliable ones.
501:
502: Indeed, one could use this information to reverse the argument
503: and use both statistics together as a test on the assumptions being made
504: on the data. If in the case of SNAP the median and $\chi^2$ statistics
505: do not agree, then this indicate that either the errors do not have a
506: Gaussian distribution or that one is somehow underestimating
507: the statistical and/or systematic errors.
508:
509: \begin{table}
510: \caption{\label{median_1D_results}Values of $\Omega_m $ obtained
511: through median statistics for supernova data
512: (both the current and the SNAP datasets) with a flat universe prior.
513: Results for the usual $\chi^2$ statistic are also shown for comparison.
514: Here a value of $H_0 = 65.2\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$ was
515: assumed for the Hubble parameter}
516: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
517: Statistic & Current data set & SNAP data set \\
518: \hline
519: Median & \( 0.29^{+0.03}_{-0.10} \) & \( 0.301^{+0.004}_{-0.005} \) \\
520: Chi Squared & \( 0.28^{+0.05}_{-0.04} \) & \( 0.300^{+0.004}_{-0.003} \) \\
521: \end{tabular}
522: \end{table}
523:
524: \section{Conclusions}
525:
526: We have discussed standard and modified median statistics in the context
527: of current and forthcoming type Ia supernova data sets. The purpose of the
528: modifications is to reduce some of its weaknesses, mainly by accounting for
529: the number and size of sequences of consecutive points above or
530: below the median. We found that in some circumstances the performances of the
531: median and $\chi^2$ statistics can be comparable, and if used together they
532: provide a simple test on the assumptions being made on the data.
533:
534: The main problem with the standard median statistics analysis is its
535: inability to cope well with a multi-dimensional fit specially if it
536: is dependent on several parameters. This is due to the very simple
537: assumptions it makes. On the other hand, when confronted
538: with a single parameter to fit, the ensuing results can be of similar
539: precision to the ones obtained with a $\chi^2$ analysis.
540:
541: Another advantage of median statistics is that it is an analysis method
542: which is extremely easy to implement. So even in the cases where
543: it is not expected to produce results as constraining as a $\chi^2$ analysis,
544: it can be used to complement it or to provide fast fits in the early stages
545: of the analysis, notably if one is still trying to gather supporting
546: evidence for the use of stronger hypothesis about the dataset.
547: Using median statistics we no longer have to suppose
548: that the errors follow a Gaussian distribution with known standard deviation,
549: and can therefore have greater confidence in the parameter ranges obtained.
550: This is an important concern for the particular case of type Ia supernovae:
551: recall that when studying them we are considering renormalised light curves,
552: and that the calibration data set (of nearby supernovae) is smaller than the
553: main data set (of distant supernovae). The median statistic is also less
554: sensitive to systematic effects such as weak lensing.
555:
556: We have studied some simple means by which to improve median statistics,
557: namely accounting for the size of the largest sequence or the number of
558: sequences present in the dataset above or below the model prediction,
559: Our adjustments did provide some improvement, even if in a
560: our confidence regions are still larger than that obtained
561: from a $\chi^2$ study. We note however that other more `baroque'
562: modifications are certainly conceivable. Other possibilities, which certainly
563: deserve further work, are to study how similar procedures could be
564: used to improve the standard $\chi^2$ analysis (which is sequence blind),
565: and to apply median statistics to other cosmological data sets,
566: most notably the cosmic microwave background. We shall report on these
567: issues in a forthcoming publication.
568:
569: \acknowledgments
570:
571: C.M. is funded by FCT (Portugal), under grant no. FMRH/BPD/1600/2000.
572: We are grateful to Alessandro Melchiorri, Gra\c ca Rocha and Paul Shellard
573: for useful comments and suggestions.
574:
575: \begin{thebibliography}{}
576: \bibitem[Bean \& Melchiorri(2002)]{Bean:2001xy}
577: Bean, R. \& Melchiorri, A. 2002, \prd 65, 041302
578: \bibitem[Bucher(1999)]{Bucher:1998mh}
579: Bucher, M. 1999, \prd 60, 043505
580: \bibitem[Caldwell, Dave, \& Steinhardt(1998)]{Caldwell:1998ii}
581: Caldwell, R. R., Dave, R. \& Steinhardt, P.1998, \prl 80, 1582
582: \bibitem[Carroll, Press \& Turner(1992)]{carroll}
583: Carroll, S., Press, W. \& Turner, E.L. 1992, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 30, 499
584: \bibitem[Freedman(2000)]{Freedman:1999wh}
585: Freedman, W. L. 2000, Phys. Reports 333, 13
586: \bibitem[Gott et al.(2001)]{Gott:2000mv}
587: Gott, J. R. {\em et al.} 2001, \apj 549, 1
588: \bibitem[Jaffe et al.(2001)]{Jaffe:2000tx}
589: Jaffe, A. H. {\em et al.} 2001, \prl 86, 3475
590: \bibitem[Nugent(2000)]{Nugent:2000vs}
591: Nugent, P. 2000, SNAP: Supernova acceleration probe: An experiment to measure the
592: properties of the accelerating universe. See homepage at http://snap.lbl.gov
593: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(1988)]{ratra1}
594: Peebles, P.J.E. \& Ratra, B. 1988, \apj 325, L17
595: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{Perlmutter:1998np}
596: Perlmutter, S. {\em et al.} 1999, \apj 517, 565
597: \bibitem[Phillips et al.(1999)]{Phillips:1999vh}
598: Phillips, M. M. {\em et al.} 1999, \aj 118, 1766
599: \bibitem[Podariu \& Ratra(2000)]{ratra3}
600: Podariu, S. \& Ratra, B. 2000, \apj 532, 109
601: \bibitem[Ratra \& Peebles(1988)]{ratra2}
602: Ratra, B. \& Peebles, P.J.E. 1988, \prd 37, 3406
603: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{Riess:1998cb}
604: Riess, A. {\em et al.} 1998, \aj 116, 1009
605: \bibitem[Waga \& Frieman(2000)]{waga}
606: Waga, I. \& Frieman, J. 2000, \prd 62, 043501
607: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2000)]{Wang:1999fa}
608: Wang, L. {\em et al.} 2000, \apj 530, 17
609: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2000)]{Wang:1999bz}
610: Wang, Y. {\em et al.} 2000, \apj 536, 531
611: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht(2001)]{Weller:2001gf}
612: Weller, J., and Albrecht, A. 2001, astro-ph/0106079
613:
614: \end{thebibliography}
615:
616:
617: \clearpage
618:
619: \begin{figure}
620: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
621: \caption{The $68 \%$, $95 \%$ and $99 \% $ confidence regions
622: resulting from standard
623: median and $\chi^2$ statistics in the $\Omega_m-\Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane,
624: using the 92 supernovae from the combined SCP and HzST results. A value of
625: $H_0 = 65.2\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$ was assumed for the Hubble
626: parameter (see main text). \label{fig1}}
627: \end{figure}
628:
629: \begin{figure}
630: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
631: \caption{The $68 \%$, $95 \%$ and $99 \% $ confidence
632: regions resulting from standard
633: median and $\chi^2$ statistics in the $\Omega_m-\Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane,
634: using the SNAP-class dataset. A value of
635: $H_0 = 65.2\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$ was assumed for the Hubble
636: parameter (see main text). \label{fig2}}
637: \end{figure}
638:
639: \begin{figure}
640: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
641: \caption{The $68 \%$, $95 \%$ and $99 \% $ confidence
642: regions resulting from modified
643: median statistics in the $\Omega_m-\Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane,
644: using the SNAP-class dataset. A value of
645: $H_0 = 65.2\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$ was assumed for
646: the Hubble parameter (see main text).
647: The first plot shows the results obtained using median statistics modified to
648: account for the largest sequence, while in the second we consider the number
649: of sequences. \label{fig3}}
650: \end{figure}
651:
652: \begin{figure}
653: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
654: \caption{Marginal distributions for $\Omega_m$ obtained using the standard
655: median (dot-dashed) and $\chi^2$ (solid line) statistics,
656: assuming a flat Universe, for the current and
657: the SNAP-class datasets. The $68 \%$, $95 \%$ and
658: $99 \%$ confidence limits are where the curves drop below the
659: (dashed) lines of constant $p$ (0.68,0.95 and 0.99 respectively).
660: Note that a value of $H_0 = 65.2\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$ was
661: assumed for the Hubble parameter. \label{fig4}}
662: \end{figure}
663:
664: \end{document}
665: