over the last two decades , the application of ion traps has expanded from mass spectrometry  @xcite and frequency standards  @xcite towards engineering of quantum systems which can be used for quantum computation  @xcite and quantum simulation  @xcite .
it is commonly accepted that large - scale trapped ion quantum information processors require micrometer - scale ion traps  @xcite .
such traps usually suffer from excessive electric field noise close to metallic surfaces at room temperature , but at cryogenic temperatures this noise is strongly reduced  @xcite .
thus , it seems natural to move towards cryogenic experimental setups which have the additional advantage that the ambient pressure is usually a few orders of magnitude lower than at room temperature .
this enables trapping of longer ion strings due to fewer collisions with background gas .
furthermore , no bake - out procedure of the vacuum vessel is required , allowing for rapid trap cycle times .
+ the operation of paul traps requires high radio - frequency ( rf ) voltages , which are usually generated with the aid of the voltage gain present in rf resonators . for this purpose , helical resonators
are typically used in the frequency regime up to 50mhz , whereas for experiments requiring higher drive frequencies coaxial resonators have been used as well  @xcite . in cryogenic experiments ,
the resonator needs to fulfill different criteria than in room temperature experiments where the resonator can be placed outside the vacuum vessel .
in particular , the connections in a cryostat need to have low thermal conductivity to limit the thermal load . following the wiedemann - franz law , this results in a low electrical conductivity between room - temperature and the cryogenic parts of the experiment .
thus , the resonators have to be operated at the cold - stage
. moreover , space constraints are stricter in cryogenic systems which makes helical resonators undesirable as they are generally bulky . to minimize the volume of the resonator
, an rlc - series - resonator can be used  @xcite .
+ in section  [ sec : general considerations ] , we focus on the choice of the trap drive frequency , the required voltage gain , and voltage monitoring .
section  [ sec : coil design ] covers coil design for three types of coils , and in the following section  [ sec : matching ] , we discuss impedance matching of the resonator and present an efficient way to match cryogenic resonators .
section  [ sec : rf shield ] focuses on the design of rf shielding , and finally , we present the results in section  [ sec : results ] .
in trapped ion experiments , rf - voltages of several hundreds of volts are commonly applied to the trap , which has a simple capacitor as its electrical circuit equivalent .
thus , we need to design a resonator that maximizes the rf - voltage at this capacitor for a given input power . in this section , we discuss general considerations in resonator design which are not limited to a specific resonator type .      at first
, we consider the losses in an rlc - resonator and its scaling with frequency . from the solution of the equation of motion of a trapped ion in a paul trap ( mathieu equation ) , one obtains the trap voltages with the stability parameter @xmath0  @xcite , which scales as @xmath1 where @xmath2 is the amplitude of the rf - voltage at the trap and
@xmath3 is the trap drive ( angular ) frequency .
hence , for constant @xmath0 the loss power scales as @xmath4 a low trap drive frequency will reduce the losses .
on the other hand , high secular motion frequencies of the ion in the trap are desirable for operation .
higher secular frequencies require a higher @xmath3 , and thus the desired secular frequencies set a lower limit for @xmath3 . in this study
, we aim for a @xmath0 around 0.25 , an axial secular frequency of 1mhz , and both radial frequencies to be 3.7mhz .
this will require a trap drive frequency of @xmath5 42.6mhz .
simulations of our trap show that we need a drive voltage of about @xmath6 to reach the desired trap frequencies . in order to limit the thermal load onto the cryostat from dissipated power in the resonator
, this voltage should be reached with less than 100mw of rf  input power .
this power corresponds to a consumption of about 1/7l of liquid helium per hour when operating a wet cryostat at 4.2k  @xcite .
( 0,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( 5.2,1.75 ) ; ( 5,1.75 ) to [ r=@xmath7 ( 6.5,1.75 ) ; ( 6.3,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.9,1.75 ) ; ( 6.9,1.75 ) to [ l=@xmath8 ( 8,1.75 ) ; ( 8,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , i=@xmath9 ( 9,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 9,1.15 ) ; ( 9,1.2 ) to [ c=@xmath10 ( 9,0.8 ) ; ( 9,0.85 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 9,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( 0,0.25 ) ; ( 0,0.35 ) to [ open , v^=@xmath11 ( 0,1.75 ) ; ( 9,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , * -o ] ( 11,0.25 ) ; ( 11,0.35 ) to [ open , v=@xmath12 ( 11,1.75 ) ; ( 11,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , o- * ] ( 9,1.75 ) ;    at ( 2.5,1 ) * matching * ;    fig .
[ fig : general matching ] shows an rlc - series - resonator driven through a matching network . in the following
, we will assume perfect impedance matching with a loss - less matching network .
thus , we can set the input power equal to the loss power in the resonator @xmath13 , where @xmath14 with @xmath15 being the input voltage supplied to the circuit and @xmath16 the wave impedance of the connecting cable , commonly @xmath17
. we can further write @xmath18 where @xmath19 is the current in the resonator , @xmath20 its effective loss resistance , @xmath3 its frequency , @xmath21 the voltage at the capacitor , and @xmath22 the capacitor representing the trap .
thus , we obtain @xmath23 where @xmath24 is the voltage gain of the circuit , defined as @xmath25 .
+ the quality factor @xmath26 of a resonator is defined as the resonance frequency @xmath27 divided by the bandwidth @xmath28 @xmath29 in trapped ion experiments , we are usually not interested in a small bandwidth around @xmath3 but rather in a large voltage gain at the trap drive frequency .
it should be noted that the voltage gain and bandwidth are qualitatively but not necessary quantitatively the same for different types of resonators .
the quantity that is of direct interest for our application is the voltage gain , which can be derived from  ( [ eq : matching 1 ] ) as @xmath30 with the quality factor of an ideal rlc resonator @xmath31 .
this indicates that both , the capacitive load , and the effective resistance of the resonator should be minimized .
( 0,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( 3.5,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , i=@xmath9 ( 4.5,1.75 ) ; ( 4.4,1.75 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , r=@xmath7 ( 5.4,1.75 ) ; ( 5.3,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.9,1.75 ) ; ( 5.9,1.75 ) to [ l , l_=@xmath8 ( 7,1.75 ) ; ( 7,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7.5,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7.5,1.1 ) ; ( 7.5,1.75 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c , l_=@xmath10 ( 7.5,0.25 ) ; ( 7.5,0.9 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7.5,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( 0,0.25 ) ; ( 0,0.35 ) to [ open , v^=@xmath11 ( 0,1.75 ) ; ( 7.5,1.75 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c=@xmath32 , color = black , * - ] ( 9.5,1.75 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c=@xmath33 ( 9.5,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 7.5,0.25 ) ; ( 7.5,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 8.4,1.75 ) ; ( 9.5,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , * -o ] ( 11.5,0.25 ) to [ open , v=@xmath34 ( 11.5,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , o- * ] ( 9.5,1.75 ) ; ( 8.6,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( 11.5,1.75 ) ; ( 11.5,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , o- * ] ( 7.5,0.25 ) ; ( 9.5,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 9.5,0.9 ) ; ( 9.5,1.75 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 9.5,1.1 ) ; ( 7.4,3 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7.4,2.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7,2.5 ) ; ( 7,2.5 ) to [ l , l_=@xmath35 ( 5.9,2.5 ) ; ( 5.9,2.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.4,2.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.4,3 ) ; ( 7.4,3 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( 7.4,3.5 ) ; ( 7.4,3.5 ) to [ open , v=@xmath36 ( 5.4,3.5 ) ; ( 5.4,3.5 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( 5.4,3 ) ; ( 7.7 , 0.3 ) to [ open , v=@xmath12 ( 7.7,1.75 ) ;    at ( 2.25,1 ) * matching * ;    voltage pick - ups are not required for the operation of the trap , but are useful to measure the voltage on the trap and are required to actively stabilize the rf voltage on the trap . in this section , we discuss inductive and capacitive pick - up , as shown in fig .
[ fig : general pickup ] . +
a capacitive pick - up consists of a voltage divider parallel to the trap , where @xmath37 , which leads to the pick - up voltage @xmath38 @xmath39 has to be small compared to the trap capacitance @xmath22 , or the capacitive load of the rlc - resonator will increase significantly , reducing @xmath24 as shown in  ( [ eq : matching 2 ] ) .
typical values for @xmath40 are several hundred times the value of @xmath39 .
+ in an ideal rlc - series - resonator , the voltage on the coil is the same as the voltage at the capacitor but with a phase shift .
we can monitor the voltage at the coil as a signal proportional to the voltage at the trap since we are only interested in the amplitude of the trap voltage .
here , @xmath41 and @xmath42 are coupled , and the pick - up voltage can be estimated with the derivations from ref .
+ in order to maintain low losses , the pick - up should not add significant losses in the resonator .
if one uses a coaxial cable with a wave impedance @xmath16 to monitor the pick - up signal , a resistor @xmath16 is used as a termination to avoid reflections .
the losses are then @xmath43 which need to be small compared to the losses in the resonator @xmath44 . + in general , we recommend using an inductive pick - up , because it does not increase the capacitive load , which would reduce the voltage gain .
however for experiments , which frequently test different traps , a capacitive pick - up may be preferable since the more accurate ratio between pick - up and applied voltage facilitates estimating trapping parameters .
surface traps for cryogenic environments typically use a high - quality dielectric carrier material and thus the losses in the resonator are usually dominated by the coil . in this study , we demonstrate the design and production of compact and low - loss coils that should allow us to drive our resonator under the conditions stated in section  [ sec : gen considerations - choose trap drive ] .
coils produced with machines are desirable because the production process is reproducible . furthermore , we prefer toroid coils as they guide the magnetic field in their center , making them less sensitive to their environment . in our application ,
ferromagnetic core materials are undesirable , because they would induce spatial inhomogeneities of the magnetic field near the trap .
we estimate the load capacitance of our resonator to be 10pf , which at a given resonance frequency of 42.6mhz yields a required inductance of 1.4@xmath45h .
kamby and coworkers  @xcite demonstrated the integration of toroidal rf - inductors into printed circuit boards ( pcb ) .
these coils can be fully produced by machines and in this study we will refer to these inductors as pcb coils .
@xcite provides specific formulas for the inductance @xmath41 , the resistance of one segment @xmath46 , and the resistance of one via @xmath47 of pcb coils . in order to minimize the losses of the coil we want to minimize the resistance of one winding while maintaining a constant cross - section to keep the inductance constant
the resistance of one winding is defined by @xmath48 where @xmath49 and @xmath50 are the outer and the inner radius of the pcb coil , @xmath51 is the thickness of the pcb , and @xmath52 and @xmath53 are the average length - dependent resistances of a segment and a via . @xmath52 and @xmath53
depend on the exact geometry , but usually vias have similar cross - sections as the segments making their length - dependent resistances approximately equal .
that means , in order to minimize  ( [ eq : pcb coils minimize resistance ] ) and to keep the cross section of the coil constant , @xmath54 and @xmath51 should be similar in size . + we chose rogers 4350b as the substrate material , because it has a small loss tangent , a similar thermal expansion coefficient as copper , and is ultra - high vacuum compatible .
the thickest available rogers 4350b had 3.1 mm thickness , which is unfortunately too thin to minimize the resistance for a given cross - section .
+        we produced this type of coil in - house and during multiple iterations , we varied the size and the number of vias .
the lowest losses for our production process could be achieved with the design depicted in fig .
[ fig : pcb coil ] .
the pcb coil has an outer diameter of 35 mm and an inner diameter 20.4 mm with a substrate thickness of 3.1 mm .
its 64 windings result in an inductance of 1.4@xmath45h .
we added one winding which is galvanically isolated from the rest of the coil .
this winding acts as an inductive pick - up and should thus be as reproducible as the entire coil .      for the second type of coils , wire coils
, we wound a single wire around a rigid structure leading to a similar geometry as the pcb coils .
such a coil is less reproducible than a pcb coil since the wire length will vary for each coil .
hence , its inductance and its resistance will vary as well . a coil with the same geometry as for the pcb coils above , made out of silver - plated copper on a rogers 4350b substrate ,
is shown in fig .
[ fig : wire coil ] .
+        in wire coils , the cross - section of the core of a wire coil is bigger than that of a pcb coil , because the wire bends are less sharp .
hence , we expect the inductance of a wire coil to be higher than the one of a pcb coil with the same nominal geometry .
the 0.4 mm thick silver - plated copper wire , which we used for the wire coil , had a cross - section similar to the average cross - section of a pcb coil .
therefore , we expect similar losses in both types of coils with the same geometries .
these considerations allow us to characterize the production processes of the pcb coils by comparing the two types of coils .
higher losses in the pcb coils are an indication that the production of the pcb coils can be improved .
+ since we do not need traces on the substrate , it is possible use any machinable material with a low loss tangent .
we also produced wire coils with a teflon core since it has a lower loss tangent and a lower dielectric constant than rogers 4350b .
thus , the losses will be less affected by the core material and the self - resonance frequency of the coil will be higher .
another option to minimize the losses in the coil can be to use a superconducting wire to reduce the ohmic losses of the resonator .
the quality factor of the presented coils are limited by the ohmic resistance of the conductor .
thus , a coil based on a superconductor is expected to result in lower losses in the resonator .
furthermore , it could be necessary to operate the experiment at temperatures above 15k to reduce the liquid helium consumption in wet cryostats . at these temperatures , a superconductor with a high critical temperature such as a high temperature superconductor ( hts )
is required .
however , a coil made from a readily available hts material needs to be a two - dimensional ( 2d ) structure due to manufacturing constraints , and we choose to use a spiral coil as shown in fig .  [ fig : hts coil ] .
+        since such coils require only 2d structuring , they can be manufactured in a very accurate and reproducible way . for the demonstrated spiral coil ,
a high - temperature superconductor ( hts ) was produced by _ _
ceraco ceramic coating__. our coils were made out of an yttrium barium copper oxide ( ybco ) film of 330 nm thickness on a sapphire wafer .
to facilitate soldered connections , a 200 nm film of gold was placed on top of the superconductor .
the critical temperature of this ybco film is above 87k , and its critical current density is higher than @xmath55a/@xmath56 at 77k .
we can derive the peak current in the coil from section  [ sec : general considerations ] to be 0.64a .
hence , traces with a width of more than 100@xmath45 m are required to stay below the critical current density . + for our square spiral coils , we chose a trace width of 300@xmath45 m , a trace gap of 150@xmath45 m , and 10 windings .
we designed 9 different coils varying the outer diameter between 14 and 20 mm .
equation 4.1 of reference  @xcite gives an estimate for the inductance , which results in target inductances between 1.2@xmath45h and 1.6@xmath45h for our coils .
this design should allow for coils with very high quality factors already at temperatures accessible with liquid nitrogen instead of liquid helium .
+ it should be noted here that superconductors are perfect diamagnets , which are spatial inhomogeneities for magnetic fields .
one can align the 2d plane of the spiral coil with the spatially homogeneous magnetic field of the experiment to minimize this effect , but one should always keep this in mind .
the resonator is connected to the source through a cable with a given wave resistance @xmath16 , typically 50@xmath3 .
the complex voltage reflection coefficient @xmath57 at the transition from the cable to the resonator  @xcite is then @xmath58 where @xmath59 is the complex reflected voltage , @xmath60 is the complex incoming voltage , and @xmath61 is the complex impedance of the resonator .
the reflected power coefficient @xmath62 is then just @xmath63 .
since rlc - series resonators have a very low impedance on resonance , @xmath64 , the transition from a 50@xmath3-cable to the resonator on resonance will reflect almost all the inserted power . in order to minimize the reflection ,
a properly designed impedance matching network is required .
the most commonly used matching network is the @xmath41-network as it is the simplest , consisting only of two circuit elements .
+    ( 0,5.75 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( 1.15,5.75 ) ; ( 1.05,5.75 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c=@xmath65 ( 1.45,5.75 ) ; ( 1.35,5.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 3.1,5.75 ) ; ( 3,5.75 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , r=@xmath7 ( 4,5.75 ) ; ( 3.9,5.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.05,5.75 ) ; ( 4.9,5.75 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , l , l=@xmath8 ( 6,5.75 ) ; ( 5.8,5.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.5,5.75 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.5,4.85 ) ; ( 6.5,4.95 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c , l_=@xmath10 ( 6.5,4.55 ) ; ( 6.5,4.65 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.5,3.75 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( 0,3.75 ) ; ( 0,3.85 ) to [ open , v^=@xmath11 ( 0,5.75 ) ; ( 2.25,5.75 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 2.25,5.05 ) ; ( 2.25,5.25 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , l=@xmath66 , color = black ] ( 2.25,4.15 ) ; ( 2.25,4.35 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 2.25,3.75 ) ; ( 6.7 , 3.8 ) to [ open , v=@xmath12 ( 6.7,5.75 ) ; ( -1.5,6 ) node [ ] ;    ( 0,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( 0.85,2.25 ) ; ( 0.7,2.25 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , l=@xmath66 ] ( 1.8,2.25 ) ; ( 1.6,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 3.1,2.25 ) ; ( 3,2.25 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , r=@xmath7 ( 4,2.25 ) ; ( 3.9,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.05,2.25 ) ; ( 4.9,2.25 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , l , l=@xmath8 ( 6,2.25 ) ; ( 5.8,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.5,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.5,1.35 ) ; ( 6.5,1.45 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c , l_=@xmath10 ( 6.5,1.05 ) ; ( 6.5,1.15 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.5,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( 0,0.25 ) ; ( 0,0.35 ) to [ open , v^=@xmath11 ( 0,2.25 ) ; ( 2.25,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 2.25,1.35 ) ; ( 2.25,1.45 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c=@xmath68 , color = black ] ( 2.25,1.05 ) ; ( 2.25,1.15 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 2.25,0.25 ) ; ( 6.7 , 0.3 ) to [ open , v=@xmath12 ( 6.7,2.25 ) ; ( -1.5,2.5 ) node [ ] ;    fig .
[ fig : matching networks ] shows the two possible @xmath41-networks where the reactance parallel to the resonator transforms the real part of the impedance to be @xmath16 .
the resulting imaginary term is small compared to @xmath16 ( for low loss resonators ) and can be compensated with the series reactance . +     and matching coil @xmath69 for the matching networks of fig .
[ fig : matching networks ] over a varying quality factor of the coil .
the matching is calculated for a 50@xmath3-cable , an inductor of 1.4@xmath45h , and a capacitor of 10pf . ]
the resonator s quality factor from  ( [ eq : quality factor - bandwidth ] ) can be written as @xmath70 for an rlc - series resonator .
[ fig : matching network simulation ] shows the required values for the matching capacitor @xmath71 and inductance @xmath69 as a function of the quality factor of the coil with inductance of 1.4@xmath45h . for quality factors around 1000 ,
the required inductance @xmath69 is in the range of 10nh .
thin traces on a pcb have approximately a length - dependent inductance of 1nh / mm .
therefore , small deviations in the trace length will lead to inefficient matching .
the strong dependence of the matching on the reactance parallel to the resonator makes the matching network from fig .
[ fig : matching networks]b ) more favorable , because capacitances of several hundred pf can be adjusted with much more precision than inductances of about 10nh .
one can incorporate the inductance @xmath69 into the trace on the pcb from the coaxial connector to the matching capacitance , by setting this distance between 1 and 2 cm .
hence , we expect a power reflection of 1% or less even without adding an additional inductor .
+    ( -0.5,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( 3.6,2.25 ) ; ( 3.5,2.25 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , r=@xmath7 ( 4.5,2.25 ) ; ( 4.4,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.45,2.25 ) ; ( 5.4,2.25 ) to [ l , l=@xmath8 ( 6.6,2.25 ) ; ( 6.5,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7,1.35 ) ; ( 7,1.45 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c , l_=@xmath10 ( 7,1.05 ) ; ( 7,1.15 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 7,0.25 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( -0.5,0.25 ) ; ( -0.5,0.25 ) to [ open , v^=@xmath11 ( -0.5,2.25 ) ; ( 1.75,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 1.75 , 1.35 ) ; ( 1.75,1.45 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c , l_=@xmath68 , color = black ] ( 1.75,1.05 ) ; ( 1.75,1.15 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 1.75 , 0.25 ) ; ( 2.75,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 2.75 , 1.65 ) ; ( 2.75,1.85 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , l=@xmath72 , color = black ] ( 2.75,0.65 ) ; ( 2.75,0.85 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 2.75 , 0.25 ) ; ( 7.2 , 0.3 ) to [ open , v=@xmath12 ( 7.2,2.25 ) ;    rf transformers or baluns on the rf input side are commonly used to avoid ground loops between the rf source and the experiment . when using the circuit from fig .
[ fig : matching networks]b ) in combination with a transformer , the dc potential of the trap electrodes is not defined .
we mitigate this by adding an rf - choke parallel to the matching capacitor , where @xmath73 , as depicted in fig .
[ fig : matching network choice ] .
+    -cable , an inductor of 1.4@xmath45h , and a capacitor of 10pf , thus a resonance frequency of 42.6mhz .
the red lines show the values for a fixed capacitance @xmath71 chosen for an ideal matching of @xmath74 . in a )
, one can see the required matching capacitor as a function of the quality factor of the coil @xmath75 .
b ) shows the change in resonance frequency of an ideal match . in c ) , the voltage gain is plotted over @xmath75 .
d ) shows the reflection coefficient of the matching network . ]    in a cryostat , it is impractical to adjust the matching capacitance @xmath71 during or after a cool down
. hence , we have to find an efficient way of choosing the best value for @xmath71 with a minimum number of temperature cycles . for this , we simulated our matching circuit for varying and also for a constant value of @xmath71 .
[ fig : matching reflection ] shows results of simulations where the fixed capacitor value was chosen for a match at @xmath74 . fig .
[ fig : matching reflection]a ) depicts an increase of the optimum @xmath71 with increasing @xmath75 .
[ fig : matching reflection]b ) illustrates the dependence of the matched resonance frequency on @xmath75 . in fig .
[ fig : matching reflection]c ) , the simulations confirm the dependence of the voltage gain on @xmath75 , following from  ( [ eq : matching 2 ] ) . if the physical value for @xmath75 is smaller than the expected value , used to chose the fixed matching capacitor , the voltage gain is about the same than for an ideal match .
but if the actual quality factor @xmath75 is higher than the expected value , the voltage gain will be lower than with an ideal match . hence underestimating the quality factor of the coil
should be avoided since it would result in a significantly lower voltage gain .
[ fig : matching reflection]d ) shows the reflection coefficient as a function of @xmath75 .
the effect of @xmath69 is small and thus it was omitted for these simulations .
we can see that even without @xmath69 , but with an ideally matched @xmath71 , a low reflection coefficient can be achieved .
if one chooses a constant value for @xmath71 at a match for @xmath74 , the reflected power will stay below 5% even if @xmath75 varies between 800 and 2000 .
+ the parameters for exact impedance matching can be estimated with one additional cooling cycle .
for the first cycle , one has to guess the value for @xmath75 and adjust @xmath71 according to simulations following the approach of fig .
[ fig : matching reflection]a ) .
when the resonator is cold , the reflection coefficient is measured and compared with the simulations in fig .
[ fig : matching reflection]d ) .
the measured reflection coefficient can then only correspond to two values for @xmath75 .
if the reflection coefficient passed a minimum during cool - down , one should choose the higher value , if not , the lower value of @xmath75 . with this new value for @xmath75 , one can calculate the correct matching capacitor value @xmath71 .
our experience shows that this method will yield a power reflection coefficient of less than 2% for the second cool down .
rf resonators emit electromagnetic radiation , which needs to be shielded to minimize unwanted rf interference in other parts of the experiment .
the rf shield needs to be grounded , and thereby generates a capacitance between the resonator and ground .
this capacitance has to be minimized as suggested in  ( [ eq : matching 2 ] ) . in order to keep the resonator compact
, we have to find a trade - off between the size of the shield and the capacitance added by it .
+    ( 1,2.5 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( 2.1,2.5 ) ; ( 2,2.5 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , r=@xmath7 ( 3,2.5 ) ; ( 2.9,2.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 3.55,2.5 ) ; ( 3.4,2.5 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , l=@xmath8 ( 4.5,2.5 ) ; ( 4.3,2.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.5,2.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.5,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.2,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.2,1.735 ) ; ( 6.2,1.825 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c=@xmath10 ( 6.2,1.425 ) ; ( 6.2,1.525 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 6.2,1 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.5,1 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.5,0.75 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( 1,0.75 ) ; ( 5.5,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 4.8,2.25 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.8,1.725 ) ; ( 4.8,1.825 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1cm , c , l_=@xmath76 ( 4.8,1.425 ) ; ( 4.8,1.525 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.8,1 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 5.5,1 ) ; ( 5.1,3 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.6,3.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.362,3.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.4,3.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.4,4.538 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.4,4.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.762,4.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.8,4.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.8,3.462 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.8,3.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.6,3.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 5.127,2.973 ) ; ( -1.5,7 ) to [ short , color = black , o- ] ( -0.9,7 ) ; ( -1,7 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , r=@xmath77 ( 0,7 ) ; ( -0.1,7 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 0.35,7 ) ; ( 0.25,7 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , l=@xmath78 ( 1.25,7 ) ; ( 1.15,7 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 1.75,7 ) ; ( 1.5,7 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 1.5,6.35 ) ; ( 1.5,6.45 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , c , l_=@xmath79 ( 1.5,6.05 ) ; ( 1.5,6.15 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 1.5,5.5 ) ; ( 1.75,5.5 ) to [ short , color = black , -o ] ( -1.5,5.5 ) ;    ( 2.24,6.25 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 2.25,6.25 ) ; ( 2.51,6.25 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 2.5,6.25 ) ; ( 2.74,6.25 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 2.75,6.25 ) ;    ( 3.25,7 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 3.6,7 ) ; ( 3.5,7 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , r=@xmath77 ( 4.5,7 ) ; ( 4.4,7 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 4.85,7 ) ; ( 4.75,7 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , l=@xmath78 ( 5.75,7 ) ; ( 5.65,7 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 8,7 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 8,6.35 ) ; ( 6,7 ) to [ short , color = black , * - ] ( 6,6.35 ) ; ( 6,6.45 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , c , l_=@xmath79 ( 6,6.05 ) ; ( 6,6.15 ) to [ short , color = black , - * ] ( 6,5.5 ) ; ( 8,6.45 ) to [ /tikz / circuitikz / bipoles / length=1 cm , c=@xmath10 ( 8,6.05 ) ; ( 8,6.15 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 8,5.5 ) to [ short , color = black ] ( 3.25,5.5 ) ; ( -1.5,7.75 ) to[out=-90,in=-180 ] ( -1.4,8 ) to[out=0,in=-90 ] ( 0.125,8.25 ) to[out=-90,in=-180 ] ( 1.65,8 ) to[out=-0,in=-90 ] ( 1.75,7.75 ) ; ( 0.125,8.75 ) circle(0pt)node[anchor = north]half a winding ; ( -1.5,5.25 ) to[out=-90,in=180 ] ( -1.25,5 ) to[out=0,in=180 ] ( 1.5,5.25 ) to[out=0,in=+90 ] ( 2.375,4.7 ) to[out=+90,in=+180 ] ( 3.25,5.25 ) to[out=0,in=180 ] ( 6,5 ) to[out=0,in=-90 ] ( 6.25,5.25 ) ; ( 2.375,4.05 ) circle(0pt)node[anchor = south]x 2n ;    first , we need to find a model for the shield capacitance @xmath80 .
[ fig : shield cap model ] depicts a model where we divide the coil in 2@xmath81 half windings .
each has an ohmic resistance of @xmath82 , an inductance @xmath83 , and a capacitance to the shield @xmath84 .
we can estimate @xmath84 with the standard formula for a parallel - plate capacitor if we assume that the grounded shield is parallel to the coil . from the calculations of the impedance of the entire circuit
, we can extract the effective capacitance @xmath80 that occurs due to the presence of the shield .
+        the results of these simulations for our pcb coils with an outer radius of 17.5 mm and an inner radius of 10.2 mm are shown in fig .
[ fig : shield cap simulation ] .
it can be seen that a distance of about 2 mm is sufficient to keep the additional capacitive load below 1pf .
adapted simulations for the wire coils yield results similar to the ones for the pcb coils .
hence , we can use the same shield for both types of coils .
+ we expect that the capacitance caused by the shield for the spiral coils is even smaller , because its surface is smaller
. additionally , if we place the spiral coil in the center of the same shield , the distance to the shield will be 1.55 mm bigger than for the other coils .
hence , the capacitance to ground will decrease further .
moreover , the shield has an influence on the magnetic field lines of the spiral coil in this configuration and thereby also on the inductance and the losses of the coil .
+ at room temperature , the penetration depth due to skin effect in copper at frequencies around 40mhz is about 10@xmath45 m .
thus , any mechanically stable shield , of a couple of 1/10 mm thickness , should yield a suitable attenuation .
[ fig : resonator with shield ] shows a resonator encased in a silver - plated copper shield .
the dimensions of this resonator are 57 mm x 40 mm x 10.2 mm .
on the left side of the resonator , one can see a pcb with the matching network at the top and the smt - connector for the inductive pick - up at the bottom .
on the right side is the pcb coil , and the two pcbs are connected together by soldered joints .
in our measurement setup , we used a capacitive pick - up to measure the voltage at the trap . with the known ratio of this capacitive voltage divider
, we could directly measure the voltage at the trap and calibrate the inductive pick - up of the coil .
+    lcccc * name * & * t * & @xmath85 & @xmath86 & @xmath87 + pcb coil & 295k & 42.4mhz & 19.4 & 60 + pcb coil & @xmath8880k & 42.8mhz & 27.1 & 115 + pcb coil & @xmath8810k & 42.9mhz & 41.5 & 208 + wire coil & 295k & 36.8mhz & 25.2 & 89 + wire coil & @xmath8880k & 37.2mhz & 36.5 & 184 + wire coil & @xmath8810k & 37.9mhz & 58.9 & 624 + hts coil & @xmath8988k & 44.3mhz & 92.1 & 1172 +    table  [ tab : measurement results ] shows our measurement results .
the pcb coils had an inductance very close to the desired value .
unfortunately , we could not achieve the expected quality factor .
we had designed the wire coils to have losses similar to the pcb coils , but the pcb coils showed much higher losses than the wire coils . we think this is due to an imperfect production process that we could not improve further with our in - house techniques . + additionally to the pcb coils in copper , we produced them in silver as well .
the inductances were similar , but the losses in the silver coils were even higher .
this was unexpected as silver is a better conductor than copper .
but the silver coils needed to be reworked after fabrication to remove shorts between the segments . during this process , the silver coating might have been scratched , resulting in higher losses .
we expect that silver plating after structuring should reduce the losses compared to a copper coil , but we were unable to do so with our in - house fabrication process .
+ the voltage gain of about 60 of the wire coil would require 160mw rf input power to get to the desired 170@xmath90 at the trap .
if we adjust the voltage to keep the stability parameter @xmath91 , only 100mw rf input power are required at the modified resonance frequency .
+ we expect that one can improve the quality factor of the wire coil by using a thicker wire .
we also tested a resonator with a lead - plated wire , which did not show an increased voltage gain .
we either could not reach the critical temperature of lead in our test setup , or the lead was not pure enough to become superconducting .
+ the spiral coil showed the highest voltage gain , although the shield influences the magnetic field generated by the coil .
we observed a change of the resonance frequency of a couple of percent when cooling down from liquid nitrogen temperatures to liquid helium temperatures , which we attribute to the shield surrounding the coil . with a voltage gain of 92
, one would need about 70mw of rf input power to get 170@xmath90 . with a stability parameter @xmath92 at the higher resonance frequency
, it would be 82mw .
we have demonstrated three designs of rf resonators for trapped ion experiments with paul traps .
the pcb coils have favorable mechanical properties but still need an improved production process , such as e.g. thermal annealing .
the wire coils fulfill our criteria and can be further improved by using a thicker or superconducting wire . the hts spiral coil showed the highest voltage gain , which was already accessible at temperatures reached with liquid nitrogen cooling .
+ efficient matching is usually difficult in a cryogenic environment because normally one can not tune the matching parameters when the cryostat is cold .
we have shown a recipe to efficiently match rlc - resonators without precise knowledge of their quality factors . during this empirical study
we regularly achieved matching with a power reflection of less than 2% on the second cool - down .
additionally , we designed and implemented a shield for resonators to minimize rf pick - up in other parts of the experiment .
we thank gerhard hendl from the institute of quantum optics and quantum information of the austrian academy of science for the production of pcbs , and pcb coils for this study .
furthermore , we want to thank florian ong for feedback on the manuscript . this research was funded by the office of the director of national intelligence ( odni ) , intelligence advanced research projects activity ( iarpa ) , through the army research office grant w911nf-10 - 1 - 0284 .
all statements of fact , opinion or conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the official views or policies of iarpa , the odni , or the u.s .
government .
w. paul , rev .
* 62 * ( 1990 ) 531 - 540 m. chwalla , j. benhelm , k. kim , g. kirchmair , t. monz , m. riebe , p. schindler , a.s .
villar , w. haensel , c. f. roos , r. blatt , m. abgrall , g. santarelli , g. d. rovera , ph .
laurent , phys .
* 102 * ( 2009 ) 023002 h. s. margolis , g. huang , g. p. barwood , s. n. lea , h. a. klein , w. r. c. rowley , p. gill , r. s. windeler , phys . rev .
a * 67 * ( 2003 ) 032501 j.i .
cirac , p. zoller , phys .
* 74 * ( 1995 ) 4091 - 4094 d. kielpinski , c. monroe , d.j .
wineland , nature * 417 * ( 2002 ) 709 - 711 t. monz , p. schindler , j.t .
barreiro , m. chwalla , d. nigg , w.a .
coish , m. harlander , w. hnsel , m. hennrich , r. blatt phys .
* 106 * ( 2011 ) 130506 d. porras , j.i .
cirac , phys .
* 92 * ( 2004 ) 207901 p. jurcevic , b.p .
lanyon , p. hauke , c. hempel , p. zoller , r. blatt , c.f .
roos , nature * 511 * ( 2014 ) 202 - 205 q.a .
turchette , b.e .
king , d. leibfried , d.m .
meekhof , c.j .
myatt , m.a .
rowe , c.a .
sackett , c.s .
wood , w. itano , c. monroe , d. j. wineland , physical review a * 61 * ( 2000 ) 063418 j. labaziewicz , y. ge , p. antohi , d. leibrandt , k. r. brown , i. l. chuang , physical review letters * 100 * ( 2008 ) 013001 w.w .
macalpine , r.o .
schildknecht , proc .
ire * 47 * ( 1959 ) 2099 - 2105 j.d .
siverns , l.r .
simkins , s.weidt , w.k .
hensinger , appl .
b * 107 * ( 2012 ) 921 - 934 s.r . jefferts , c. monroe , e.w .
bell , d.j .
wineland , phys .
rev . a * 51 * ( 1995 ) 3112 - 3116 m. e. poitzsch , j. c. bergquist , w. m. itano , d. j. wineland , rev .
sci . instrum .
* 67 * ( 1996 ) 129 - 134 d. gandolfi , m. niedermayr , m. kumph , m. brownnutt , r. blatt , rev .
* 83 * ( 2012 ) 084705 d. j. wineland , c. monroe , w. m. itano , d. leibfried , b. e. king , d. m. meekhof , journal of research of the national institute of standards and technology * 103 * ( 1998 ) 259 - 328 j. w. ekin , _ experimental techniques for low - temperature measurements _ ( oxford university press , 2006 ) 504 - 505 p. kamby , a. knott , m.a.e .
andersen , iecon 2012 - 38th annual conference on ieee industrial electronics society ( 2012 ) 680 - 684 s. s. mohan , _ the design , modeling and optimization of on - chip inductor and transformer circuits _
thesis , department of electrical engineering , stanford university , 1999 ) d.m .
pozar , _ microwave engineering _
( john wiley & sons , 2011 )


of the various types of supernovae ( sne ) we observe , only certain subtypes of type ii sne have been conclusively connected to their progenitors .
pre - explosion imaging has shown that sne ii - plateau ( sne  iip ) , for example , come from red supergiants ( see review by @xcite ) .
owing to their cosmological significance , the progenitor systems of sne ia have been pursued relentlessly over the last two decades , but their nature is still debated ( see for a recent review ) .
sne ii and stripped - envelope sne ( se sne ; i.e. , sne  iib , ib , ic , and broad - lined ic ; e.g. , ) are attributed to the core collapse ( cc ) of stars more massive than @xmath0 .
spectroscopically , se sne are distinguished from sne ii by the lack of hydrogen features ( either partial , as in sne iib , or nearly complete , as in sne ib ; e.g. , ) .
sne ic also lack helium features . in order to explain this lack of hydrogen and helium , se  sne
are thought to be the explosions of stars that have had their outer envelopes stripped away before the explosion ( hence their name ) .
of all the processes suggested to explain this stripping , the leading models make use of either stellar winds ( e.g. , @xcite ) , interaction with a binary companion ( e.g. , ) , or a combination of both ( e.g. , @xcite ) . in the case of broad - lined sne
ic connected to gamma - ray bursts , chemically homogeneous evolution ( e.g. , ) and explosive common - envelope ejection @xcite have also been suggested .
pre - explosion imaging of the sites of these sne has so far failed to reveal the nature of their progenitors conclusively ( e.g. , @xcite ) , though the case for yellow super - giants in binary systems as the progenitors of sne iib is gaining traction ( e.g. , ) .
new observational methods are required to address this question .
sne ia are thought to be thermonuclear explosions of carbon - oxygen white - dwarf remnants of @xmath1  @xmath2 stars . in order to disrupt the otherwise stable white dwarf
, most models place it in a binary system where it can grow in mass , raising the temperature in the core until the carbon is ignited in a thermonuclear runaway . to grow in mass , the white dwarf can either siphon matter off of a main - sequence or evolved companion star ( the so - called `` single - degenerate '' scenario ; @xcite ) or merge with a second carbon - oxygen white dwarf after the two spiral in owing to loss of energy and angular momentum to gravitational waves ( the `` double degenerate '' scenario ; @xcite ) .
recently , direct collisions of white dwarfs have also been suggested as a possible progenitor channel ( e.g. , @xcite ; but see also @xcite ) .
many methods have been used to constrain these various sn progenitor models , including ( but far from limited to ) direct imaging of the explosion sites either before or long after the sn explosion ( e.g. , @xcite ) , multiwavelength follow - up observations ( e.g. , @xcite ) , and analyses of sn remnants ( e.g. , @xcite ) .    in this work ,
we concentrate on correlations between sn rates and various galaxy properties and what those correlations can tell us about sn progenitors .
@xcite showed that sn ia rates per unit mass decreased with increasing galaxy stellar mass .
* hereafter l11 ) showed the same effect for all sn types , in all types of galaxies ( but see section  [ sec : snia ] ) , and dubbed this the `` rate - size , '' or rate - mass , relation .
we confirmed this trend for sne  ia in star - forming galaxies in @xcite and for sne  ii in ( * ? ? ?
* hereafter g15 ) .
following @xcite , we showed that the dependence of the sn ia rates on stellar mass results from a combination of galaxy scaling relations ( older galaxies are more massive , on average , than younger ones ; @xcite ) and the sn ia delay - time distribution ( dtd ) , which behaves as a power law with an index of @xmath3 ( e.g. , observations by @xcite ; and reviews by ) .
, @xcite , @xcite , and g15 also measured sn ia rates as a function of the galaxies specific star - formation rate ( ssfr ) .
in g15 , we showed that our explanation for the rate - mass correlation also explained the observed trend between sn ia rates and ssfr , where the rates are constant in passive galaxies but rise with increasing ssfr in star - forming galaxies .    in g15 , we also measured sn rates as a function of stellar mass and ssfr for sne ii and claimed that their rate - mass relation was simply the result of their progenitors short lifetimes : because sne ii come from massive ( @xmath4 ) stars , their rates track the star - formation rates of their galaxies .
similar measurements of cc sn rates ( i.e. , combining sne ii and se sne ) were made by @xcite .
l11 was part of a series of papers that explored the sn sample collected by the lick observatory supernova search ( loss ; l11 ; @xcite ) .
loss is an ongoing survey for sne in local galaxies using the 0.76-m katzman automatic imaging telescope . for detailed descriptions of the survey ,
see @xcite , @xcite , and @xcite .    here
, we use the loss sample to remeasure and re - analyze the sn rates originally published by l11 . in section  [ sec : galaxies ] , we match between the loss sample and spectroscopy from the sloan digital sky survey ( sdss ; @xcite ) in order to go beyond l11 and measure the sn rates not only as a function of galaxy stellar mass but also of ssfr and metallicity , as expressed by the abundance of gas - phase oxygen in the centers of the loss galaxies .    in section  [ sec : addendum ] , we make several addendums to the loss sample .
we publish the control times necessary to measure sn rates with this sample , as well as updated galaxy - property tables and sn rates .
we deal with sne ia in section  [ sec : snia ] , and with cc sne in section  [ sec : ccsn ] .
we find significant correlations between the sn rates and the various galaxy properties .
most importantly , we find that the cc sn rates behave differently in different types of galaxies : the se sn rates are shown to be deficient , relative to the sn ii rates , in galaxies with low stellar mass , high ssfrs , and low metallicity values .
other studies have reported similar trends through measurements of correlations between fractions of sne within a given sample and metallicity ( e.g. , ) , or by splitting sn fractions between different types of galaxies , which encompass different metallicity regimes @xcite .
we conduct an in - depth comparison of our results with these works in section  [ subsec : ccsn_context ] .
in section  [ sec : discuss ] , we discuss how the various rate correlations are not independent . for all sn types , a correlation with one galaxy property
can be transformed into the measured correlations with any other galaxy property by using well - known galaxy scaling relations .
this makes it impossible to distinguish causation from correlation , especially for the deficiency of se sne in lower - mass galaxies .
however , we argue that the structure seen in the correlations ( e.g. , the way the ratio between the se sn and sn ii rates depends on galaxy stellar mass ) can be used to constrain progenitor models .
paper ii in this series will use population fractions , as measured from the loss volume - limited subsample of sne , to strengthen the results presented here and add further constraints on sn progenitor scenarios . for paper ii , we rely on a reclassification of the sne in this subsample , as reported by shivvers et al .
( in prep . ) .
between march 1998 and december 2008 , loss discovered a total of 1,036 sne .
most of these were discovered among the 14,882 galaxies directly targeted by the search ( at a median distance of @xmath5 mpc , where the upper and lower bounds contain 68% of the galaxies in the sample ) , but a few dozen were also discovered in background galaxies in the loss fields .
this sample , along with the subsamples used to measure the loss sn luminosity functions @xcite and rates ( l11 ) , are described in detail by @xcite .
loss classified their sne into three broad categories ( e.g. , ): sne ia , ib / c , and ii .
the first category included all sn  ia subtypes , including the subluminous sn 1991bg - like sne , overluminous sn 1991t - like sne , and sn 2002cx - like sne  ia ( now referred to as sne iax ; @xcite ) .
sne ib / c included sne ib , ic , and `` peculiar '' se sne ( such as broad - lined sne ic ; see , e.g. , for a review ) . the final category comprised sne iip , iil , iin , and iib .
however , as mentioned earlier , sne iib are characterized by hydrogen deficiency , which is an indication of envelope stripping .
thus , they should be grouped with the sne ib / c ( e.g. , @xcite ) . in this work ,
we use `` se sne '' instead of `` sne ib / c . ''
however , because we use the control times calculated by l11 for the loss sample ( see sections  [ sec : addendum ] and [ subsec : rates_mass ] , below ) , we must keep the sne iib grouped with the sn ii class when calculating rates .
fourteen sne had no spectroscopic classification .
@xcite divided these sne into the three sn categories `` according to the statistics of the sne having spectroscopic classification '' and used them in the l11 rate calculations .
we choose to exclude these sne from the rate measurements performed in this work .
@xcite divided the loss galaxies into eight hubble types  e , s0 , sa , sb , sbc , sc , scd , and irr ( irregular )  according to their designations in the nasa extragalactic database .
we keep these designations in the current work .
we divide the complete loss galaxy sample into several subsamples , which we label the `` loss , '' `` ssfr , '' and `` metallicity '' samples .
the loss sample is similar to the sample used by l11 to measure the original loss sn rates ( i.e. , the `` full - optimal '' subsample ; 10,121 galaxies from the targeted list only , i.e. , excluding sne discovered in background galaxies ) and is used here to measure sn rates per unit mass ( `` specific '' rates ) as a function of galaxy stellar mass .
the ssfr sample comprises 2,415 galaxies targeted by loss that had spectra acquired by the sdss and were analyzed by both the mpa - jhu galspec pipeline @xcite and the nasa - sloan atlas ( nsa ) , which is based on the sdss dr8 spectroscopic catalog @xcite .
this sample is used to correlate the sn rates with ssfr .
the `` metallicity '' sample is a subset of 1,000 galaxies from the mpa - jhu galspec catalog , which we use to measure specific sn rates as a function of the central oxygen abundances of the galaxies .
we detail the selection criteria for each of the subsamples in appendix  [ appendix : samples ] . in appendix
[ appendix : consistency ] , we show that the rates measured with each sample are mutually consistent .
the numbers of galaxies and sne in each subsample are summarized in table  [ table : sample_general ] and the properties of the galaxies in the entire loss sample are given in table  [ table : gal_prop ] .
cc   &   +    before delving into correlations between sn rates and galaxy properties , we use this section to present several updates and extensions to the original loss papers .
figures 3 and 4 of l11 show measurements of specific sn rates as a function of galaxy stellar mass in galaxies of different hubble types .
however , in these figures , the rates for each type are scaled to match the rates as measured in sbc galaxies .
this means that the scatter of the rates in different galaxy types is not visible in the figures ( though it can be reconstructed to some degree from the parameters of the fits to the original , unscaled measurements , which appear in table 4 of l11 ) , and the rate - mass correlation appears tighter than it really is . in figure
[ fig : rates_all ] , we show similar measurements , but do not scale them , so that their spread is apparent . in the sn ii rates , where the scatter is largest , there is a clear progression from late - type ( i.e. , younger and less massive ) galaxies , where the rates are highest , to early - type ( older , more massive ) galaxies . in the se sn and sn ia rates , where the scatter is smaller , this trend is not as clear .
we publish our newly calculated loss rates in table  [ table : rates ] .
l11 fit power laws to their rates and published the fits in their table 4 .
they did not , however , publish the measurements themselves .
our rates are not identical to those measured by l11 , as we use the entire full - optimal subset of galaxies , after filling in missing masses ( see appendix  [ appendix : samples ] ) , but leave out the 14 sne without spectroscopic classifications ( see section  [ sec : galaxies ] , above ) . however , the differences between the loss sample used here and the one used by l11 are minor and have little effect on the resultant rates .    l11 divided their sne into bins so that each rate bin contained roughly the same number of sne ( `` sn - fixed '' bins ) .
this is a common practice in studies where the sn sample sizes are either small to begin with , or reduced owing to binning ( in this case , by binning the host galaxies according to hubble type ) ; we will follow this binning scheme in the following sections .
once the sample size is increased , though , other binning schemes become available , such as using bins of constant stellar mass ( `` mass - fixed '' bins ) .
it then becomes necessary to formulate an objective , data - driven method to determine the binning scheme that will extract the most information out of the sample .
to better trace the correlation between the sn rates and stellar mass , we use a sliding mass bin of constant width .
the size of this bin depends on the size of the sn sample and is determined by knuth s rule @xcite , with the added constraint that the bin width not exceed 1 dex of @xmath2 . in each iteration ,
the bin either gains or loses the nearest sn to its current borders , such that in some iterations , losing one sn on one end may lead to a gain of several sne on the other . in each bin @xmath6 , the specific sn rate , @xmath7 ,
is measured according to @xmath8 where @xmath9 is the number of sne in the bin , @xmath10 is the stellar mass of the @xmath11-th galaxy in the bin , and @xmath12 is the control ( or visibility ) time of the @xmath11-th galaxy  i.e . , the time during which a given sn type could have been detected by loss during the survey .
these control times take into account the detection efficiency of the survey , as well as our broad knowledge of sn characteristics ( i.e. , light curve shapes and luminosity functions ) .
we use the original loss control times as computed by l11 ( see also @xcite and @xcite ; see section  [ subsec : rates_mass ] for a discussion of how the inclusion of sne iib in the sn ii control times may affect the rates measured here).these control times were not included in tables 2 and 4 of @xcite , which laid out most of the properties of the loss galaxy and sn samples . in order for our work to be reproducible , and for others to continue to explore the loss sample , we publish the control times in table  [ table : sample_general ] .
as can be seen in figure  [ fig : rates_all ] , the sliding - bin rates diverge wildly at the edges of the mass range in each panel . as the number of galaxies that go into the denominator in equation  [ eq : rate ] grows smaller ( as shown in the stellar mass histograms in the bottom panels ) , and the number of sne decreases , the poisson noise dominates , and the rate eventually diverges .
this problem also affects rates measured with sn - fixed or mass - fixed bins ( as shown in figure  [ fig : all_samples ] ) , but is usually not as apparent .
the sliding - bin rates are useful for visual recognition of possibly interesting features , such as the break and rate ratio discussed in section  [ subsec : rates_mass ] , below .
however , they are not independent measurements and so can not be used for curve fitting .
thus , throughout this work , we use sn - fixed bins for fitting purposes .
the number of bins for each fit is chosen to maximize the number of sne in each bin while also revealing as much structure in the rates .
we repeat each fit with a different number of bins to make sure that the results do not change appreciably .
all rates in this paper are presented in units of @xmath13 , which are abbreviated to `` snum '' ( i.e. , sn rate per unit mass ) . in all the sn rate figures presented here ,
vertical error bars are 68% poisson uncertainties , while horizontal error bars denote the 16th and 84th percentiles of the distribution of galaxies within each bin .    [
cols="^,^ " , ]
in this work , we measure specific sn rates using the loss `` full - optimal '' sample and two subsamples of this sample , labeled `` ssfr '' and `` metallicity , '' which are described in section  [ sec : galaxies ] . as one chooses progressively smaller subsamples of a given sample , there arises the possibility that any resulting measurements from those subsamples would be biased , relative to measurements performed with the main sample . to test for any such biases , and whether the sliding - bin rates are a good representation of the rates , figure  [ fig : all_samples ]
shows the rates for each sn type as measured from the different subsamples and with various binning schemes .
`` sn - fixed '' bins are chosen so that they contain roughly the same number of sne in each bin while `` mass - fixed '' bins contain roughly the same amount of stellar mass , in log scale .
finally , we also show the rates in fixed bins of varying width , as calculated with the astroml @xcite realization of the @xcite bayesian blocks algorithm .
the various binning schemes produce measurements that generally agree with each other , except at the lower end of the mass range , where the small number of galaxies and sne can cause relatively large fluctuations in the rates .
it is also clear that the rates as measured with a sliding bin are a good representation of the data .
moreover , the rates measured with the ssfr subsample are consistent with those measured with the main loss sample .
the rates measured from the metallicity subsample , however , are markedly higher in the largest - mass bin for both sne ii and se sne ; no such bias is noticeable for the sn ia rates .
we ascribe this bias to the small size of the metallicity subsample ( @xmath14% of the main loss sample ) .
this bias means that a larger sample is required to test the validity of the correlations between the sn rates and metallicity shown in figure  [ fig : rates_oh ] .
the connection between these correlations and the galaxy scaling relations between metallicity and stellar mass , however , should not be affected by this bias , as in this work we measure the latter scaling relation directly from the galaxies and sn hosts in the metallicity subsample .
the likelihood ratio test is used to compare the goodness - of - fit of nested models , such as polynomials of increasing order . in this work ,
we use the likelihood ratio test to compare between zeroth- , first- , and second - order polynomials as fits to various datasets . the likelihood ratio ( @xmath15 )
is simply the ratio of the likelihoods ( @xmath16 ) of the data ( @xmath17 ) given the best - fitting parameters of each type of fit , @xmath18 for the null hypothesis ( the lower - order polynomial ) and @xmath19 for the model being tested : @xmath20 the likelihood ratio is distributed as a @xmath21 distribution , with the number of degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the degrees of freedom of the models tested ( one or two in our case ) .
@xmath22 , so that through the likelihood ratio we can obtain a @xmath23-value for the significance of the rejection of the null hypothesis .
these @xmath23-values can then be translated into gaussian standard deviations , so that here we report the significance of the tests in multiples of @xmath24 , with @xmath25 as the minimal significance for a `` discovery . ''    when fitting the sn rates ,
the likelihood function is simply that of the poisson probability density function ( pdf ) , as the uncertainties of the rates are dominated by the sizes of the sn samples .
the likelihood function is then @xmath26 where @xmath27 is the number of bins in which the rates are measured , @xmath28 is the observed number of sne , and @xmath29 is the number of sne resulting from the best fit to the rates .    the likelihood function of the rate - ratio measurements shown in figure  [ fig : rate_ratio ] is more complicated .
formally , it should be the ratio ( @xmath30 ) of the poisson pdfs of the se sne , @xmath31 , and sne ii , @xmath32 , in each bin .
however , as @xcite notes , if @xmath33 , the denominator vanishes , and @xmath15 is undefined .
@xcite uses a truncated version of @xmath32 , so that @xmath34=1 $ ] , to solve this problem , but the resultant pdf of @xmath30 is hard to compute .
however , for sufficiently large values of @xmath35 and @xmath36 , the poisson pdfs will approach the gaussian pdfs @xmath37 and @xmath38 , with means @xmath39 and @xmath40 , and standard deviations @xmath41 and @xmath42 .
@xcite calculated the ratio of normal pdfs . for gaussian functions , @xcite have shown that given that @xmath17 and @xmath43 are uncorrelated , and that the coefficients of variation satisfy @xmath44 and @xmath45 , the ratio @xmath30 can be transformed via the geary - hinkley transformation into @xmath46 and the pdf of @xmath47 will then be a normal distribution with @xmath48 and @xmath49 . for @xmath37 and @xmath38 ,
the conditions on the coefficients are satisfied for @xmath50 and @xmath51 .
the latter conditions are satisifed for all binning methods of the rate ratio .
however , owing to the small sn samples , the basic condition for the approximations described above  that the numbers of sne are large enough that their poisson pdfs approach gaussian ones  is clearly not satisifed . to alleviate this problem , when fitting the polynomials to the measurements , we take the upper uncertainty ( which , for a poisson distribution , is always larger than the lower uncertainty ) of each measurement as the overall uncertainty .                                                                      , a.  v. , li , w.  d. , treffers , r.  r. , & modjaz , m. 2001 , in astronomical society of the pacific conference series , vol . 246 , iau colloq . 183 : small telescope astronomy on global scales , ed .
b.  paczynski , w .- p .
chen , & c.  lemme , 121                                                                                , w.  d. , filippenko , a.  v. , treffers , r.  r. , et  al .
2000 , in american institute of physics conference series , vol .
522 , american institute of physics conference series , ed .
s.  s. holt & w.  w. zhang , 103106                                                                                lccccccccccccbcccccccccccc ugca_017 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 8.222 & 7.817 & 7.799 & 0.2599 & 1.4566 & 1.0383 & 25.78 & sc & 21.5601 & -6.0942 & & & & & & & & & & + ugca_024 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 9.772 & 9.534 & 9.599 & 0 & 0.1499 & 0 & 17.44 & scd & 31.1308 & -6.1989 & & & & & & & & & & + ugc_03825 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 6.776 & 2.215 & 4.993 & 10.0454 & 3.3206 & 15.1121 & 115.29 & sbc & 110.8882 & 41.4350 & 1864 & 53313 & 171 & 0.0276 & 6.7895 & 0.1012 & 0.0137 & & 4.3351 & 0.2624 + ugc_03944 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 8.730 & 7.540 & 6.696 & 0.9475 & 1.2143 & 2.2752 & 55.03 & scd & 114.6521 & 37.6335 & 431 & 51877 & 34 & 0.0130 & 0.8508 & 0.4333 & 0.4667 & 9.0732 & 0.6577 & 0.7980 + ugc_04226 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 6.624 & 4.436 & 3.355 & 5.3292 & 2.4379 & 8.9522 & 110.23 & scd & 121.8392 & 40.3983 & 545 & 52202 & 111 & 0.0264 & 4.4377 & 0.0777 & 0.0161 & & 4.4055 & 0.0253 + columns : + @xmath52galaxy name .
+ @xmath53whether galaxy belongs to the loss `` full - optimal '' subsample used to measure sn rates here and by l11 ( 1 = yes , 0 = no )
. + @xmath54number of sne  ia , se  sne , and sne  ii ( respectively ) discovered in each galaxy .
+ @xmath55sn control time for sne  ia , se  sne , and sne  ii ( respectively ) .
+ @xmath56galaxy stellar mass measured by l11 from the @xmath57- and @xmath58-band luminosities .
+ @xmath59@xmath57- and @xmath58-band luminosities ( respectively ) .
+ @xmath60distance to galaxy .
+ @xmath61hubble type of galaxy , according to the system adopted by @xcite .
+ @xmath62right ascension and declination ( respectively ) of galaxy , in decimal units .
+ @xmath63sdss plate , modified julian date ( mjd ) , and fiber identifier ( respectively ) .
+ @xmath64galaxy redshift , measured from the sdss spectrum .
+ @xmath65galaxy stellar mass , sfr , ssfr , and oxgen abundance ( respectively ) measured by the sdss mpa - jhu galspec pipeline .
+ @xmath66galaxy stellar mass and ssfr ( respectively ) measured from nsa petrosian and sersic photometry . +    lccccccccccccc + e & 6.1^+4.4_-5.0 & 0.092^+0.042_-0.030 & 9 & 14.1^+2.3_-1.6 & 0.095^+0.047_-0.033 & 8 & 21.1^+2.6_-2.3 & 0.086^+0.040_-0.028 & 9 & 33.4^+15.4_-6.3 & 0.034^+0.016_-0.011 & 9 & 35 + s0 & 2.2^+1.8_-1.7 & 0.177^+0.061_-0.047 & 14 & 7.0^+2.2_-1.7 & 0.073^+0.025_-0.019 & 14 & 13.6^+3.7_-2.1 & 0.052^+0.018_-0.014 & 14 & 26.5^+10.9_-5.1 & 0.051^+0.018_-0.014 & 14 & 56 + sab & 1.6^+1.2_-1.2 & 0.253^+0.102_-0.075 & 11 & 4.4^+0.5_-0.7 & 0.188^+0.080_-0.058 & 10 & 7.5^+2.4_-1.7 & 0.074^+0.030_-0.022 & 11 & 15.8^+6.4_-3.5 & 0.067^+0.027_-0.020 & 11 & 43 + sb & 1.2^+1.0_0.9 & 0.284^+0.108_-0.081 & 12 & 3.7^+0.8_-0.7 & 0.233^+0.084_-0.064 & 13 & 7.4^+2.6_-1.9 & 0.067^+0.025_-0.019 & 12 & 15.1^+5.9_-2.7 & 0.082^+0.030_-0.022 & 13 & 50 + sbc & 1.0^+1.1_-0.8 & 0.228^+0.104_-0.075 & 9 & 3.9^+0.8_-0.8 & 0.167^+0.076_-0.055 & 9 & 6.5^+1.2_-1.0 & 0.147^+0.067_-0.048 & 9 & 11.3^+6.4_-2.2 & 0.078^+0.035_-0.025 & 9 & 36 + sc & 0.7^+0.9_-0.5 & 0.237^+0.117_-0.082 & 8 & 3.1^+0.9_-0.7 & 0.194^+0.096_-0.067 & 8 & 6.0^+1.2_-1.0 & 0.176^+0.087_-0.061 & 8 & 11.3^+6.5_-2.7 & 0.103^+0.051_-0.036 & 8 & 32 + scd & 0.1^+0.3_-0.1 & 0.217^+0.211_-0.118 & 3 & 1.2^+0.4_-0.3 & 0.406^+0.200_-0.141 & 8 & 2.9^+1.3_-0.8 & 0.111^+0.075_-0.048 & 5 & 9.1^+6.1_-2.5 & 0.128^+0.076_-0.051 & 6 & 22 + e  scd & 0.9^+1.4_-0.8 & 0.236^+0.032_-0.029 & 68 & 4.7^+1.3_-1.0 & 0.140^+0.019_-0.017 & 69 & 9.3^+2.5_-1.9 & 0.086^+0.012_-0.011 & 67 & 19.5^+11.4_-5.0 & 0.056^+0.008_-0.007 & 70 + all galaxies & 0.8^+1.4_-0.7 & 0.231^+0.032_-0.028 & 68 & 4.6^+1.3_-1.0 & 0.139^+0.019_-0.017 & 69 & 9.3^+2.5_-1.9 & 0.085^+0.012_-0.010 & 67 & 19.5^+11.4_-5.0 & 0.056^+0.008_-0.007 & 70 + passive & 5.5^+2.9_-3.4 & 0.069^+0.037_-0.025 & 7 & 11.6^+1.4_-1.0 & 0.119^+0.058_-0.041 & 8 & 19.6^+6.7_-4.2 & 0.043^+0.023_-0.016 & 7 & & & 22 + star forming & 0.3^+0.7_-0.2 & 0.704^+0.224_-0.174 & 16 & 2.7^+1.1_-0.9 & 0.215^+0.071_-0.055 & 15 & 7.4^+5.3_-2.3 & 0.085^+0.027_-0.021 & 16 & & & 47 +   + e & 1.2^+1.6_-1.1 & 0.132^+0.304_-0.109 & 1 & 8.8^+2.8_-3.4 & 0.000^+0.031_-0.000 & 0 & 21.7^+11.0_-6.9 & 0.007^+0.015_-0.006 & 1 & 55.6^+21.0_-7.3 & 0.040^+0.093_-0.033 & 1 & 3 + s0 & 2.9^+2.1_-2.2 & 0.010^+0.024_-0.009 & 1 & 7.4^+0.9_-0.9 & 0.018^+0.042_-0.015 & 1 & 9.2^+0.3_-0.3 & 0.075^+0.172_-0.062 & 1 & 15.8^+10.8_-4.5 & 0.004^+0.010_-0.004 & 1 & 4 + sab & 0.8^+0.8_-0.5 & 0.403^+0.319_-0.193 & 4 & 2.7^+0.5_-0.5 & 0.292^+0.197_-0.126 & 5 & 4.5^+0.6_-0.7 & 0.122^+0.097_-0.059 & 4 & 9.3^+7.3_-2.8 & 0.041^+0.028_-0.018 & 5 & 18 + sb & 0.6^+0.5_-0.5 & 0.625^+0.423_-0.270 & 5 & 1.9^+0.2_-0.2 & 0.558^+0.378_-0.241 & 5 & 4.1^+1.5_-1.3 & 0.106^+0.072_-0.046 & 5 & 10.4^+5.5_-2.8 & 0.056^+0.038_-0.024 & 5 & 20 + sbc & 0.7^+0.7_-0.5 & 0.487^+0.329_-0.210 & 5 & 3.3^+1.4_-1.2 & 0.128^+0.087_-0.055 & 5 & 6.6^+0.6_-0.7 & 0.358^+0.214_-0.142 & 6 & 10.7^+6.2_-2.5 & 0.120^+0.081_-0.052 & 5 & 21 + sc & 0.5^+0.6_-0.3 & 0.511^+0.275_-0.188 & 7 & 2.3^+0.9_-0.6 & 0.255^+0.126_-0.088 & 8 & 4.8^+1.2_-0.9 & 0.241^+0.130_-0.089 & 7 & 9.4^+5.4_-2.1 & 0.159^+0.078_-0.055 & 8 & 30 + scd & 0.2^+0.5_-0.2 & 0.225^+0.178_-0.108 & 4 & 1.4^+0.2_-0.2 & 0.538^+0.426_-0.258 & 4 & 2.3^+0.6_-0.5 & 0.295^+0.199_-0.127 & 5 & 5.2^+5.7_-1.7 & 0.091^+0.072_-0.043 & 4 & 17 + irr & 0.1^+0.1_-0.0 & 1.494^+3.435_-1.236 & 1 & 0.2^+0.0_-0.0 & 0.000^+25.3_-0.000 & 0 & 0.4^+1.1_-0.2 & 0.357^+0.820_-0.295 & 1 & 5.3^+8.8_-2.4 & 0.066^+0.152_-0.055 & 1 & 3 + sab  scd & 0.4^+0.7_-0.3 & 0.402^+0.098_-0.080 & 25 & 2.3^+0.7_-0.6 & 0.261^+0.059_-0.049 & 28 & 4.7^+1.1_-0.9 & 0.151^+0.037_-0.030 & 25 & 10.2^+6.3_-2.7 & 0.088^+0.020_-0.017 & 28 + all galaxies & 0.4^+0.7_-0.3 & 0.377^+0.086_-0.071 & 28 & 2.4^+0.7_-0.6 & 0.203^+0.044_-0.037 & 30 & 4.9^+1.2_-0.9 & 0.112^+0.025_-0.021 & 29 & 12.1^+10.2_-4.0 & 0.035^+0.008_-0.007 & 29 +   + s0 & 1.8^+1.4_-1.4 & 0.016^+0.037_-0.013 & 1 & 4.0^+0.0_0.0 & 0.985^+1.299_-0.636 & 2 & 5.2^+1.0_-0.8 & 0.020^+0.026_-0.013 & 2 & 12.9^+10.8_-4.5 & 0.004^+0.005_-0.002 & 2 & 7 + sab & 0.9^+0.8_-0.6 & 0.645^+0.259_-0.192 & 11 & 3.6^+1.1_-1.0 & 0.126^+0.054_-0.039 & 10 & 7.3^+1.9_-1.4 & 0.098^+0.039_-0.029 & 11 & 14.4^+6.9_-3.0 & 0.075^+0.030_-0.022 & 11 & 43 + sb & 1.4^+1.2_-1.1 & 0.303^+0.105_-0.080 & 14 & 4.4^+0.9_-0.8 & 0.223^+0.081_-0.061 & 13 & 8.0^+1.7_-1.7 & 0.146^+0.050_-0.039 & 14 & 14.0^+6.2_-2.1 & 0.123^+0.042_-0.032 & 14 & 55 + sbc & 0.7^+0.6_-0.5 & 1.317^+0.365_-0.292 & 20 & 2.7^+0.9_-0.7 & 0.451^+0.129_-0.103 & 19 & 5.1^+1.2_-0.8 & 0.382^+0.106_-0.085 & 20 & 10.2^+5.7_-2.5 & 0.204^+0.057_-0.045 & 20 & 79 + sc & 0.4^+0.5_-0.3 & 2.096^+0.642_-0.503 & 17 & 1.5^+0.3_-0.3 & 1.241^+0.380_-0.298 & 17 & 3.5^+1.8_-1.2 & 0.419^+0.124_-0.098 & 18 & 9.3^+5.5_-2.1 & 0.403^+0.123_-0.097 & 17 & 69 + scd & 0.1^+0.2_-0.1 & 2.256^+0.717_-0.558 & 16 & 0.7^+0.3_-0.2 & 1.442^+0.458_-0.357 & 16 & 1.7^+0.5_-0.3 & 1.194^+0.365_-0.287 & 17 & 4.1^+5.0_-1.2 & 0.355^+0.113_-0.088 & 16 & 65 + irr & 0.0^+0.0_-0.0 & 1.416^+3.255_-1.171 & 1 & 0.4^+1.1_-0.2 & 0.725^+0.956_-0.468 & 2 & 3.3^+0.8_-1.0 & 0.316^+0.727_-0.262 & 1 & 8.8^+7.3_-2.0 & 0.194^+0.256_-0.126 & 2 & 6 + sab  scd & 0.3^+0.5_-0.2 & 1.52^+0.19_-0.17 & 78 & 2.0^+0.7_-0.6 & 0.547^+0.070_-0.062 & 77 & 4.6^+1.4_-1.1 & 0.253^+0.032_-0.029 & 78 & 10.7^+6.3_-2.8 & 0.139^+0.018_-0.016 & 78 + all galaxies & 0.3^+0.5_-0.2 & 1.33^+0.16_-0.15 & 81 & 2.0^+0.7_-0.6 & 0.426^+0.053_-0.047 & 81 & 4.7^+1.4_-1.1 & 0.175^+0.022_-0.019 & 81 & 12.2^+10.2_-4.0 & 0.052^+0.006_-0.006 & 81 +    cccc|cccc|cccc & & +   + 0.035^+0.016_-0.013 & 2.2^+5.1_-1.8 & 1 & 171 & 0.011^+0.007_-0.007 & 8.0^+18.5_-6.7 & 1 & 166 & 0.015^+0.011_-0.007 & 4.2^+9.8_-3.5 & 1 & 189 + 0.084^+0.036_-0.030 & 0.4^+0.3_-0.9 & 1 & 454 & 0.075^+0.045_-0.049 & 0.4^+0.9_-0.3 & 1 & 592 & 0.09^+0.07_-0.04 & 0.3^+0.6_-0.2 & 1 & 623 + 0.09^+0.04_-0.03 & 1.1^+1.1_-0.6 & 3 & 456 & 0.08^+0.07_-0.05 & 0.9^+0.8_-0.5 & 3 & 670 & 0.14^+0.11_-0.06 & 1.2^+0.6_-0.4 & 8 & 728 + 0.10^+0.06_-0.03 & 0.9^+0.8_-0.5 & 3 & 483 & 0.10^+0.10_-0.05 & 0.6^+0.6_-0.3 & 3 & 784 & 0.15^+0.11_-0.07 & 2.5^+0.8_-0.6 & 17 & 727 + 0.14^+0.07_-0.05 & 0.9^+0.7_-0.4 & 4 & 478 & 0.11^+0.11_-0.06 & 0.7^+0.5_-0.3 & 4 & 865 & 0.15^+0.11_-0.07 & 2.4^+0.8_-0.6 & 16 & 713 + & & & & & & & & & & & + & & & & & & & & & & & +   + 0.035^+0.051_-0.022 & 2.7^+6.2_-2.2 & 1 & 143 & 0.012^+0.018_-0.006 & 13.7^+31.5_-11.3 & 1 & 90 & 0.02^+0.03_-0.01 & 6.9^+15.9_-5.7 & 1 & 108 + 0.09^+0.12_-0.05 & 0.5^+1.1_-0.4 & 1 & 374 & 0.050^+0.071_-0.026 & 1.6^+3.8_-1.4 & 1 & 208 & 0.09^+0.13_-0.05 & 0.5^+1.2_-0.4 & 1 & 372 + 0.09^+0.13_-0.06 & 1.3^+1.3_-0.7 & 3 & 379 & 0.08^+0.12_-0.04 & 1.2^+1.5_-0.7 & 2 & 373 & 0.10^+0.15_-0.06 & 2.3^+1.4_-0.9 & 6 & 402 + 0.10^+0.16_-0.07 & 1.0^+1.0_-0.5 & 3 & 416 & 0.2^+0.3_-0.1 & 0.3^+0.4_-0.2 & 2 & 601 & 0.13^+0.20_-0.08 & 1.7^+1.0_-0.7 & 6 & 435 + 0.14^+0.21_-0.09 & 1.0^+0.8_-0.5 & 4 & 430 & 0.3^+0.5_0.2 & 0.2^+0.2_-0.1 & 3 & 744 & 0.13^+0.21_-0.08 & 2.3^+1.1_-0.8 & 8 & 433 + & & & & & & & & & & & + & & & & & & & & & & & + columns : + @xmath67stellar mass of the galaxies in the bin .
error bars represent the upper and lower limits of the bin
. + @xmath68specific sn rate .
error bars are 68% poisson uncertainties stemming from the number of sne in each bin .
+ @xmath69number of sne in the given bin .
+ @xmath70number of galaxies in the given bin .
+    cccc 0.32^+0.12_-0.09 & 0.13^+0.09_-0.08 & 3 & 26 + 0.84^+0.28_-0.23 & 0.35^+0.11_-0.11 & 14 & 47 + 2.1^+0.7_-0.6 & 0.59^+0.13_-0.11 & 34 & 77 + 5.1^+1.8_-1.3 & 0.64^+0.14_-0.11 & 38 & 93 + 12^+4_-3 & 0.64^+0.15_-0.15 & 20 & 58 +    cccccccccc & 8.83^+0.17_-0.24 & 0.55^+0.29_-0.20 & 7 & -12.16^+0.19_-0.25 & 0.087^+0.028_-0.022 & 16 & -1.16^+0.29_-0.42 & 0.118^+0.032_-0.026 & 21 + & 9.113^+0.036_-0.042 & 0.20^+0.10_-0.07 & 8 & -11.20^+0.49_-0.46 & 0.073^+0.023_-0.018 & 16 & -0.23^+0.27_-0.34 & 0.100^+0.026_-0.021 & 22 + & 9.224^+0.050_-0.045 & 0.30^+0.16_-0.11 & 7 & -10.33^+0.12_-0.14 & 0.16^+0.05_-0.04 & 17 & 0.34^+0.25_-0.14 & 0.135^+0.035_-0.029 & 22 + & & & & -9.80^+0.38_-0.25 & 0.31^+0.10_-0.08 & 16 & + & 8.80^+0.16_-0.22 & 0.76^+0.60_-0.37 & 4 & -11.84^+0.57_-0.45 & 0.008^+0.019_-0.007 & 1 & -0.68^+0.45_-0.64 & 0.045^+0.027_-0.018 & 6 + & 9.088^+0.038_-0.042 & 0.26^+0.21_-0.12 & 4 & -10.43^+0.17_-0.30 & 0.09^+0.03_-0.05 & 6 & 0.11^+0.13_-0.13 & 0.13^+0.08_-0.05 & 6 + & 9.174^+0.075_-0.025 & 0.24^+0.19_-0.12 & 4 & -10.08^+0.09_-0.07 & 0.28^+0.19_-0.12 & 5 & 0.45^+0.21_-0.12 & 0.13^+0.08_-0.05 & 6 + & & & & -9.67^+0.32_-0.20 & 0.35^+0.21_-0.14 & 6 & + & 8.72^+0.15_-0.18 & 3.4^+1.3_-1.0 & 12 & -11.84^+0.57_-0.45 & 0.033^+0.015_-0.011 & 9 & -0.78^+0.40_-0.59 & 0.08^+0.02_-0.02 & 20 + & 9.010^+0.041_-0.048 & 1.39^+0.53_-0.39 & 12 & -11.51^+0.15_-0.28 & 0.17^+0.05_-0.04 & 17 & -0.05^+0.11_-0.11 & 0.30^+0.09_-0.07 & 19 + & 9.110^+0.020_-0.031 & 0.70^+0.25_-0.19 & 13 & -10.20^+0.06_-0.08 & 0.56^+0.17_-0.13 & 18 & 0.22^+0.09_-0.08 & 0.35^+0.10_-0.08 & 20 + & 9.181^+0.069_-0.031 & 0.43^+0.17_-0.12 & 12 & -9.95^+0.10_-0.11 & 0.92^+0.28_-0.22 & 17 & 0.51^+0.22_-0.11 & 0.32^+0.09_-0.07 & 20 + & & & & -9.55^+0.34_-0.17 & 1.35^+0.40_-0.31 & 18 & +    cccccc ( r_ia / snum ) & log(m_/m _ ) & -0.44 0.06 & 3.8 0.6 & 2.7/2 & > 5 + log(r_ia / snum ) & log(m_/m _ ) & -0.43 0.08 & 3.7 0.8 & 3.9/2 & > 5 + log(r_ia / snum ) & log(ssfr / yr^-1 ) & 0.23 0.08 & 1.7 0.8 & 3.2/2 & > 3 + log(r_ia / snum ) & 12+log(o / h ) & -1.3 0.7 & 11 7 & 1.0/1 & > 1 + ( r_se / snum ) & log(m_/m _ ) & -0.64 0.09 & 5.8 0.9 & 7.3/2 & > 4 + log(r_se / snum ) & log(m_/m _ ) & -0.46 0.10 & 4.1 1.0 & 2.1/2 & > 4 + log(r_se / snum ) & log(ssfr / yr^-1 ) & 0.8 0.5 & 7.0 4.8 & 0.5/1 & > 5 + log(r_se / snum ) & 12+log(o / h ) & -1.5 1.0 & 13 9 & 10 ^ -5/1 & > 1 + ( r_ii / snum ) & log(m_/m _ ) & -0.84 0.05 & 8.2 0.5 & 21/4 & > 4 + log(r_ii / snum ) & log(m_/m _ ) & -0.68 0.05 & 6.6 0.5 & 5.6/4 & > 4 + log(r_ii / snum ) & log(ssfr / yr^-1 ) & 0.9 0.2 & 8.8 1.9 & 2.7/2 & > 5 + log(r_ii / snum ) & 12+log(o / h ) & -1.73 0.45 & 16 4 & 0.6/2 & > 5 + ( m _ ) & 12+log(o / h ) & 2.5 & -12.6 & & + log(m_,ia ) & 12+log(o / h ) & 2.31 0.13 & -10.8 1.2 & 481/24 & + log(m_,se ) & 12+log(o / h ) & 3.39 0.11 & -20.4 1.2 & 16/10 & + log(m_,ii ) & 12+log(o / h ) & 3.33 0.08 & -20.1 0.7 & 321/45 & +