deletions | additions       diff --git a/appendix_reconstructed_wedges1.tex b/appendix_reconstructed_wedges1.tex  index 6de316e..3472827 100644  --- a/appendix_reconstructed_wedges1.tex  +++ b/appendix_reconstructed_wedges1.tex 
...
\section{Model-independent $H$, $D_{\rm A}$ without priors}  %============================================================  \begin{table}  \label{tab:hda_wigglez_reconstructed}  \caption{Caption for table!}  \begin{tabular}{ l | c | c | c | r }  \hline  $z_{\rm eff}$ & $cz/H/r_{\rm s}$ & $D_{\rm A}/r_{\rm s}$ & $r$ & $\chi^2$ \\  \hline  0.73 & 15.30$^{+2.11}_{-1.8}$ (12.8\%) & 9.79$^{+1.09}_{-0.36}$ (7.4\%) & -0.36 & 34.4 \\  0.6 & 11.50$^{+1.31}_{-1.63}$ (12.8\%) & 10.33$^{+0.43}_{-0.54}$ (4.7\%) & -0.16 & 24.8 \\  0.44 & 7.40$^{+4.50}_{-0.2}$ (31.8\%) & 8.72$^{+0.97}_{-2.63}$ (20.6\%) & +0.44 & 35.3 \\  \end{tabular}  \medskip  The values quoted are the modes and the $68\%$ CL regions. The percentage indicate half of the $68\%$ CL regions. \\  Fiducial values for $cz/H/r_{\rm s}$ used ($z=0.73,\ 0.6, \ 0.44$, respectively): 13.87, 12.27, 9.84. \\  Fiducial values for $D_{\rm A}/r_{\rm s}$ used ($z=0.73,\ 0.6, \ 0.44$, respectively): 9.84, 9.03, 8.87.\\  In the $\chi^2$ fitting we use 36 dof. \\  The positive cross-correlation $r$ for the $z_{\rm eff}=0.44$ is not physical, but rather due to the flat priors used. \\  \end{table}  %============================================================  In Figures \ref{fig:HDA_z60_noprior}-\ref{fig:HDA_z26_noprior} we present similar results to those shown in Figures \ref{fig:HDA_z60_epsilon0.15}-\ref{fig:HDA_z26_epsilon0.15} but without priors on $\epsilon$. We can see that in all three redshift bins that the BAO-only fit algorithm appears to yields a secondary psueo-mode at very high values of $cz/H/r_{\rm s}$. This