LSC-Virgo Burst Analysis Working Group


Burst Group Home
ExtTrig Home
CBC Group Home
LSC, LIGO, Virgo


'How-to' docs
[2008, 2007, earlier]
Talks/Posters [pre-wiki]
Paper plans
White papers


Analysis projects
Old notebook [General, S2, S3, S4, S5]
Virgo workarea
External collabs


Main review page

Review Committee Meeting Monday 27 February 2006 09:00 PST / 12:00 EST

Minutes: Monday 27 February 2006 09:00 PST / 12:00 EST

Agenda and Contact Info


  1. Continue the review of the GRB GWB search

Contact Info

AccuConference teleconferencing service:
   Phone: 1-800-704-9896, participant code: 038621#
   International callers ++1-404-920-6472 with same code


  1. Lingering concern about data conditioning. Request: re-analyze GRB030329 replacing the whitening and high-pass filtering with a time-domain high-pass filter and a LPF whitening. See if this makes any difference.
  2. Peter Kalums is ready to report on code review.
  3. Binomial test: under what conditions would the search reject the null hypothesis and claim a detection? Expect we would be curious for a probability of 0.001 but there would still be a possibility of glitches.
  4. Linear vs. circularly polarized. Astrophysically, would expect that long bursts would be SNe and could well be linearly polarized. Short bursts could be BNS-BNS or BNS-BBH mergers. These would be circularly polarized. In any case, axisymmetric systems with us along the axis would not produce significant linearly polarized radiation in our direction. Perhaps better to consider only the circularly polarized case.
  5. How many short GRBs? Only a few. Perhaps these should be highlighted.
  6. Need to redo Fig 20 but analyzing full 180s of data. Essential that sensitivity estimates use exactly the same pipeline as the search.
  7. Need to redo sensitivities using the S4 V4 calibration.
  8. HW injections: Fig 31 shows an outlier on upper right. This is caused by a glitch. Could be due to the turn-off of the injection system since this was the last injection in the series.
  9. From Figs. 30-32 it looks like a detection could be made with a cc value of 0.4-0.5. From Figs. 27-29 this would correspond to a hrss of 1e-21 which would imply an UL of about 3e-21. This is about what is seen in Fig. 20.
  10. Why was the original GRB030329 result "better"? Not clear but it could be due to rejection due to clustering.
$Id: minutes-2006-02-27.html,v 1.2 2006/03/06 16:18:44 jolien Exp $