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 8 January 2007 12:00 Pacific / 15:00 Eastern

Minutes: Monday 8 January 2007 12:00 Pacific / 15:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info


  1. Status of GRB, SGR, and S4 LIGO-Only Untriggered papers: schedule for completing these reviews
  2. High-priority projects for review in the next semester
  3. APS abstracts
  4. Is current telecon time OK?

Contact Info

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


  1. Status of GRB, SGR, and S4 LIGO-Only Untriggered papers: schedule for completing these reviews
    • GRB: hopefully only minor changes required.
    • S4 LIGO-Only Untriggered: Still need to do two semi-major changes (ICEG comparison and ranges to various sources). Anticipate that a new draft will be available next week.
    • SGR: ready (?) for distribution to LSC.
    • Reviewers will go over GRB paper for (hopefully final) discussion at next week's meeting; repeat for S4-Untriggered the following week; repeat for the SGR in the week after. That way we should clear the slate for February.
  2. High-priority projects for review in the next semester
    • Proposal is to take up three new items: (i) the S4 Cosmic String search (paper draft exists); (ii) one S5 generic burst search (WBCP, CWB, BN, or Q); (iii) one exttrig group search (e.g., S5 GRB).
    • Other "orphaned" items include AURIGA-LIGO (would Keith Riles be willing to be drawn back into the review?) and LIGO-GEO.
    • What are the untriggered burst paper plans? Don't want to review, say, Q-pipeline, if it won't be part of any paper! Somewhat circular: not setting aside time to review the method means that it is unlikely to be part of a paper.

      Paper plans are somewhat uncertain. Originally planned to have a paper on first 5 months of S5 using WBCP only. Now perhaps have a 1-year paper using all untriggered methods. Cannot yet assess which way to go: there is not yet a way to compare the sensitivity of Q-pipeline and BN vs. WBCP and CWB. Will need to defer the decision of what papers will be written until this can be assessed. We'll need to know by February so that we can plan review agenda.

    • Several modifications to the way that the GRB search is done have been requested by the review committee and others (e.g., Soumya is developing a network-based pipeline for GRB search). S5 search will not be a carbon-copy of the S2-S3-S4 search. We need to have some idea of what the search will look like. What papers are proposed? Exttrig group will meet to discuss future plans and publications.
    • Discussion of whether it is better wait until there are papers available before starting the review or if we should also be reviewing methods. Ideally we want to review methods early but there are so many of these and this may mean an inefficient use of reviewing resources.

      Should methods be "battle-tested" within burst group before being put forward to review committee?

      Searches that have been supported by only one or two individuals have fizzled in the past. It would be best if there were some group commitment to maintain a method even if the primary author were to leave.

      How many redundant methods do we want to have?

      General agreement that there should be some level of internal assessment of the search methods within the burst group. That is, there should be more interaction amongst the people doing different searches. Not clear how to best do this: should it be coordinated by the burst group or the burst review group?

    • Some discussion about shake-up of the burst reviewing (how it is done, what the scope is, whether sub-groups should be formed, etc.). No clear consensus yet about if changes are needed or what they should be. General agreement that any changes should take place after we've dealt with the next three papers. Perhaps we shouldn't make changes if things are going to be altered when Virgo participation begins anyway?
    • What is the possibility of the review committee taking all of the following tasks simultaneously: Q, BN, CWB, WBCP, plus CS, GRB, LIGO-AURIGA, LIGO-GEO. Does not seem viable. Perhaps we could do Q, BN, CWB, WBCP in parallel while doing untriggered, CS, LIGO-AURIGA, LIGO-GEO in series. Jolien's original proposal was to do three searches in parallel and if one of them had multiple components do these components in series. Erik argues that it would be better and easier to do Q, BN, CWB, and WBCP in parallel because then they can compared against one-another. (May well be better, but not clear that it will be easier.)

      One possibility is that the burst group itself could do the parallel assessment of Q, BN, CWB, and WBCP. Prepare technical report and skeleton paper for reviewers.

      Decision somewhat hinges on whether the plan is to have a 5-month WBCP paper or go straight to a 1-year multi-method paper. (And this depends somewhat on issues such as h(t) generation.) Needs to be discussed first in burst group.

  3. APS abstracts
    • List of abstracts [ HTML ].
    • Desai: veto study -- no results.
    • Matone: paper should be out by then.
    • First four (WBCP, CWB, BN, Q): not clear how viable this is. Central question is (again) what paper will we have in February? If it is one that has results from all these searches then we can try to have the review at a mature stage by APS. If not then probably only one of these will actually have "results". Fall-back: just show what was shown at GWDAW.
    • Leonor: similar issue. Not sure what S5 result will look like yet. Do not want to show results of one search when the paper will ultimately have a different search. The exttrig group needs to determine what the wish to publish for S5. This abstract should be written so that GWDAW material is a suitable fall-back.
    • In all cases, GWDAW presentation should be fall-back.
  4. Is current telecon time OK?
    • OK (not great) for those in attendance. Will send email to burst group.
$Id: minutes-2007-01-08.html,v 1.2 2007/01/08 23:14:40 jolien Exp $