LSC-Virgo Burst Analysis Working Group

Navigation

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

Documents

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

Investigations

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

Review

Main review page
Telecons

Review Committee Meeting Monday 5 November 2007 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Minutes: Monday 5 November 2007 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info

Agenda

  1. Discussion of 070922 Burst Candidate
    • Detection Checklist [ HTML ]
  2. Review of BurstMDC Simulation
    • Summary of S5 BurstMDC Simulation [ HTML ]
    • Technical Documentation [ HTML ]
    • Source Code [ HTML ]
  3. A.O.B.

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

Minutes

  1. Discussion of 070921 Burst Candidate
    • Detection Checklist: Goal is to reach a stopping point by end of week. Some things won't have been done. Somethings are not so important; other things are not appropriate at this time (e.g., checking if event was seen in other detectors.)
    • Things to do in reviewing the Detection Checklist:
      • Double check the checks -- e.g., redo them.
      • Check the analyses that were used.
      • Assess significance -- decide how to apply DQ flags to background. E.g., cWB gives a false rate of 1/50yrs -- would this be 1/100yrs with DQ flags?
    • When looking at items in checklist, would be a good idea to get relevant review teams or other committees (e.g., detchar) to review each item in list.
    • One option would be for burst group to produce a techincal report that we would review rather than delving into the checklist right now.
    • Will this be an isolated result -- a possible detection from a high-threshold online search -- or will it be part of a set of candidates from a larger offline S5 search? This affects whether this should be a fast-track analysis (like a GRB) or not. Peter argues that, unlike a GRB, we were not told when to expect this candidate, so it should be considered to be part of a longer-term search.
    • General consensus (in this meeting) that part of a larger search is probably the best way to go.
    • Assessing significance: possibly need to consider a larger data set. If this is part of a larger search, false rate should be assessed for entire search, not just for the day around the event.
    • Different possibilities of what search this is part of were discussed: A 5-way coincidence search (LGV)? (Seems artificial.) A 3-way LIGO S5 search? (May not be seen in triple coincidence by KW/BN because it would be too weak for H2.) This is an important thing for the burst group to decide.
    • Brian: this seems backwards. We should conduct the searches, open the box, and then follow-up the candidates.
    • Worry is that tuning on the LIGO-Virgo search hasn't been done. Now have to be very careful that consideration of this event does not influence tuning decisions.
    • Decision is made to table the review of this candidate until after we have a set of candidates that are part of a larger S5 search. Burst group should define what this search is and then when the box is opened, there will be some number of candidates to follow-up. (There might be other detection candidates!)
    • Timescale: a few months to tune and complete searches. Looking to have this done around Jan/Feb. Ambitious goal would be to have something to present to LSC in Mar.
    • Is there anything that must be done before decomissioning? Only thing burst group thought would be important would be to perform a hardware injection of the reconstructed waveform. This was done.
  2. Review of BurstMDC Simulation
    • No report this week.
  3. A.O.B.
    • Q-Pipeline team: David Reitze, Jonah Kanner, and Isabel Leonor.
$Id: minutes-2007-11-05.html,v 1.2 2007/11/05 17:21:35 jolien Exp $