<p>From a quick skim of the paper, it appears they using data from a previous paper by <a href="http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2009MNRAS.395.1409S" rel="nofollow">Smartt et al. (2009)</a>. That paper compiled a sample of observed supernovae (SNe) for which there are good images of the parent galaxies taken before the actual SNe. In some cases, Smartt et al. found plausible progenitor stars for the SNe; those are the "detections". Cases where they <em>couldn't</em> find a plausible progenitor on pre-SN images are the "non-detections". </p>

<p>(The authors of the paper you are talking about appear to be suggesting that Smartt et al. underestimated the masses of progenitor stars because they failed to account for extra local dust extinction from the more massive red supergiant stars.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-17T18:47:22.170Z
Thank you, that makes sense. Yes that's what I gathered they were sugggesting too
Gurfuffle
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-16T15:34:29.713Z
2016-10-16T15:34:29.713Z
Peter Erwin
<p>This may have a simple answer but I can't find it. </p>

<p>I've come across this term in a paper I was reading, <a href="http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/419/3/2054.full.pdf" rel="nofollow"> (Walmswell and Elridge, 2011)</a> which mentions 'non-detection' of Supernovae, and while I can wrap my head around detection, I was lost at 'non'.</p>

<p>I tried finding a definition but to no avail. Would anyone be able to give one?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-15T16:08:32.507Z
Did you check the reference (it's free to view). It discusses the masses of stars likely to cause a SN. It looks at those stars which have been seen to end in an SN and also makes an estimate for those stars which have ended in SNs but have not been observed - hence non-detected. They are saying that we cannot assume that all the supernovae remnants we see are absolutely typical, hence we have to make allowance for those we haven't seen.
adrianmcmenamin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-15T17:31:32.877Z
@adrianmcmenamin should be an answer.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-15T19:39:55.317Z
Only from a very cursory scan of the referred paper. So someone with a fuller grasp of the issues might be better giving a fuller answer.
adrianmcmenamin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-16T10:17:53.083Z
Yes, I am doing a summary of this paper at the moment. So a non-detection would be looking at a supernova that's already occurred and estimating what the mass of the progenitor was?
Gurfuffle
<supernova>
What is 'non-detection' of a Supernova?
Gurfuffle
# What is 'non-detection' of a Supernova?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-10-15)

This may have a simple answer but I can't find it.

I've come across this term in a paper I was reading,  [(Walmswell and Elridge, 2011)](http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/419/3/2054.full.pdf) which mentions 'non-detection' of Supernovae, and while I can wrap my head around detection, I was lost at 'non'.

I tried finding a definition but to no avail. Would anyone be able to give one?

**Tags:** supernova

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Did you check the reference (it's free to view). It discusses the masses of stars likely to cause a SN. It looks at those stars which have been seen to end in an SN and also makes an estimate for those stars which have ended in SNs but have not been observed - hence non-detected. They are saying that we cannot assume that all the supernovae remnants we see are absolutely typical, hence we have to make allowance for those we haven't seen.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 should be an answer.  
> **username_1**: Only from a very cursory scan of the referred paper. So someone with a fuller grasp of the issues might be better giving a fuller answer.  
> **username_0**: Yes, I am doing a summary of this paper at the moment. So a non-detection would be looking at a supernova that's already occurred and estimating what the mass of the progenitor was?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-10-16. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

From a quick skim of the paper, it appears they using data from a previous paper by [Smartt et al. (2009)](http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2009MNRAS.395.1409S). That paper compiled a sample of observed supernovae (SNe) for which there are good images of the parent galaxies taken before the actual SNe. In some cases, Smartt et al. found plausible progenitor stars for the SNe; those are the "detections". Cases where they *couldn't* find a plausible progenitor on pre-SN images are the "non-detections".

(The authors of the paper you are talking about appear to be suggesting that Smartt et al. underestimated the masses of progenitor stars because they failed to account for extra local dust extinction from the more massive red supergiant stars.)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you, that makes sense. Yes that's what I gathered they were sugggesting too  

---

