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 4 June 2007 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Minutes: Monday 4 June 2007 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info


  1. Continued review of GRB070201 search
    • Summary [ HTML ]
    • Isabel's Summary Page [ HTML ]
    • Code to check cross-corrrelation statistic [ HTML ].
      Documentation [ PDF ].
      Upper limit confidence belt [ PDF ].
      Cross-correlation distribution for BNS population [ PDF ].
  3. Discussion of Changes to Burst Review Procedures [ HTML ]

Contact Info

InterCall telecon service:
   Phone: 1-866-380-5536, participant code: 435 672 9587 #
   International callers ++1-816-249-4731 with same code
   International access numbers (~10 cents/min surcharge for LIGO Lab):
      Paris 017 080 7156 ;
      Lyon 042 603 0036 ;
      Germany toll-free 0800 182 1591 ;
      Berlin 030 726 167 371 ;
      Rome 00645 217 080 ;
      UK toll-free 0808 234 7914 ;
      London 0203 107 0293
   Handy participant command:  Press *6 ["*M"] to mute, #6 to unmute


  1. Continued review of GRB070201 search
    • Sensitivity checks:
      • hrss upper limit confidence belt a factor of sqrt(2) lower than Isabel's. Does Isabel include both polarizations when computing hrss of circularly polarized sine-Gaussians?
      • Distribution of cross-correlation for inspiral signals seems to disagree with Isabel's results. For MDC 130 Jolien predicts a largest cross-correlation of around 0.24 but Isabel's plot seems to show a value more like 0.4. Need to resolve this discrepancy.
      • Will try to contact Isabel later this week to sort out these issues.
    • Data Quality:
      • In S2-S3-S4 paper, data was either analyzed or not according to DQ flags. Therefore DQ flags that were used were effectively Cat-1. (Is this true?)
      • Options: I. Use Cat-1 (or Cat-1+2) as criteria in segment generation, as was done in S2-S3-S4 paper. II. Apply Cat 2(+) vetoes to the search results to discard largest cross-correlation values if they lie in a time in which a DQ flag were present, thereby adopting the second largest (and so on) as the max-cc value.
      • Problems with I: DQ flag can cause the whole GRB to be missed if it occurs within +60 -120 s of the trigger. Higher category DQ flags should not be used ... but what if the max-cc occurs at a time in which one of these flags were present?
      • Problems with II: requires new code. Must be done correctly for on-source, off-source, and injections.
      • Jolien's suggestion: for this analysis, use only Cat-1 (burst group conventions) DQ flags in the way it was done for S2-S3-S4. For full S5 analysis, implement a more flexable procedure where higher category DQ flags can be applied to parts of the segments.
    • Calibration: Brian reports that the calibration document is coming out.
    • Paper status: goal was to have a draft to LSC by end of week. Inspiral group probably will open their box tomorrow, but this will be a V02 calibration analysis. Will need to reanalyze with V03. So their results will not be final. What about burst resuts? These still need to be done with V03 calibration too. But it is important to resolve the sensitivity issues first. Hopefully this can be done before Friday.
    • Many issues have now been resolved. A few items are still marked pending. These include: Systematics (LIGO-side), Check of ringdown MDCs (to make sure that these are done with tau/10 rather than 10tau before t=0), redo post-processing scripts.
    • Some new scripts were created to compute livetimes. These differ from Silvia's scripts in a few ways and yield livetimes that are different by a few tens of seconds. Most of the discrepancies are understood.
  3. Discussion of Changes to Burst Review Procedures [ HTML ]
    • New procedures described.
    • Sergey suggest that every review team be chaired by someone in the review committee to better enable communication with the review committee. Jolien argues that the idea is to enable the review teams to do the whole review and to prepare the final report. Review committee is to commission the review teams and to make sure that they function. (People on the committee may well be part of review teams too.) Review committee will also be involved in papers at a late stage but it is the teams that will actually be charged with the goals of the analysis reviews.
$Id: minutes-2007-06-04.html,v 1.5 2007/06/04 20:04:59 jolien Exp $