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 10 March 2008 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Minutes: Monday 10 March 2008 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info


  1. Announcements
  2. Reports from Burst Review Teams
  3. Discussion of S4 LIGO-GEO burst search paper [ PDF ] (CVS version).
  4. Status of S5 SGR Flare Review [ HTML ] (time permitting).
  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
    • Cosmic string search review team being created.
  2. Reports from Burst Review Teams: None
  3. Discussion of S4 LIGO-GEO burst search paper [ PDF ] (CVS version).
    • Relied on review of existing 3-detector cWB code. New code extending to 4-detectors was reviewed by this team.
    • Paper status is mature, polishing remains. Wish to present to the LSC at LSC meeting. Deadline for circulation is Saturday. Would like to send it out on Thursday if possible so that people have it before travelling. Burst group needs to see it on Wednesday meeting.
    • Moderately high (2048 Hz) frequency injections. Is the snap-to-sample issue a problem? Keith Thorne will investigate. (Issue is the coherent method might lose efficiency.)
    • Is this a technical paper? No upper limits. Mix of technical and results. Results is a non-detection statement that is uninterpreted. Also, sensitivities and comparisons of methods
    • Figure 4. Large Gamma background event. Investigated? Yes, it results from an instrumental line Discussion of corrpower preprocessing algorithm.
    • Figure 4. Make it look like Fig. 8 (a) and (b) of S4 LIGO-only paper. Show WB threshold with a vertical line.
    • Figure 6. Various issues.
      • Why is zero lag not plotted?
      • Need a vertical line showing threshold.
      • X-axis should be rho_eff, not sqrt(rho_eff).
      • Probably best if plot similar to Fig. 8 of S4 LIGO-only paper could be produced here (with zero lag plotted on top of expected background).
    • General comment. Where possible, would be nice to keep terminology similar to S4 LIGO-only paper. I.e., "time-shifted" and "unshifted" rather than "zero-lag" and "background". Figures should look the same too.
    • Section 3. Not well defined symbols in cWB discussion. This is the first LIGO paper presenting cWB so it should be relatively complete. In particular, SNR quantities not defined well.
    • SNR rho_eff. Require that this have sensible definition. (SNR has a relatively well defined meaning elsewhere, and would like this to limit to this meaning in an appropriate limit.) Does it? Perhaps SNR might not be best description.
  4. Status of S5 SGR Flare Review [ HTML ] (time permitting).
    • Review team comfortable with opening box.
    • Possibility of presenting open-box results to LSC? It will take a while to complete box-opening analyses.... Not clear if it is worth rushing things for this LSC meeting.
  5. A.O.B. None.
$Id: minutes-2008-03-10.html,v 1.2 2008/03/10 19:21:15 jolien Exp $