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 February 2008 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Minutes: Monday 4 February 2008 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info


  1. Announcements
    • Discussion of format of weekly burst review meetings.
  2. Reports from Burst Review Teams
  3. Sergey's proposal for reviewing first-year cWB
  4. Review of BurstMDC Simulation
  5. 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


  1. Announcements: Discussion of format of weekly burst review meetings
    • Concensus that it would be best to give review teams a forum for giving updates every few weeks. We'll allocate time at the beginning of each meeting to get a brief status update from one of the review teams (cyclically) and address any concerns.
    • Important to keep this meeting available to deal with "top level" reviewing issues. E.g., looking at papers and presentations as well as doing in-depth reviews of aspects common to various burst pipelines (such as GravEn).
    • X-Pipeline review will follow the burst review committee meeting.
  2. Reports from Burst Review Teams
  3. Sergey's proposal for reviewing first-year cWB
    • Sergey is concerned that the existing team structure will require too much effort devoted to reviewing various analyses.
    • No clear alternative proposed: we already commission teams that will review methods in context with the way they are used in specific searces; by recycling the team constituents the methods themselves will not need to be re-reviewed (though perhaps updated if the methods are between searches).
    • Problem is that we will still will need to sequence reviews to some extent, but hopefully by preserving expertise on review teams there will be minimal overhead associated with re-reviewing methods
  4. Review of BurstMDC Simulation
    • Checks of calibsimfd (Tiffany Summerscales)Hardware Injection Impulse Response MaxEnt
      • Hardware injections seem to have a low-frequency phase error. This was S3.
      • Impulse responses seem wrong. Patrick suspects a sign error in open loop gain. This was S4. But h(t) was used in S4 analyses (except for the GRB analysis which used its own response function).
      • Comparison with S5 response function looks good. Need higher resolution plot. Logscale.
    • Check of calibsimfd (Keith Thorne) GRB070201 Inspiral MDC
      • Start/end differences seem comprehensible. Unlikely to be indicitive of problems since these are outside of the sensitive band. Also, not clear which is the more correct method.
      • Middle differences: probably going through a notch in the response function (need to check). Differences possibly due to using different method of obtaining alpha and gamma. LAL code probably uses averaged values.
  5. A.O.B.
$Id: minutes-2008-02-04.html,v 1.3 2008/02/04 20:16:40 jolien Exp $