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 September 15 2008 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Minutes: Monday September 15 2008 08:00 Pacific / 11:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info

Agenda

  1. Announcements
  2. Update on status of S5 1st Year All-Sky Low-Frequency Burst Search Paper [ HTML ]
    • Q-Pipeline S5 Y1 Review Summary Table [ HTML ]
    • Summary of the CWB S5Y1 review work [ PDF ]
    • Reports from 1st Year All-Sky Low-Frequency Review Teams
  3. Planning for review of S5 2nd Year All-Sky Low-Frequency Burst Search.
    • How much do review teams need to do to bring review up to 2nd year search? Statement of work required.
  4. Equinox
    • Summary of checklist.
  5. Report on 1st Year All-Sky High-Frequency search. pdf slides review summary table latest draft
  6. 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

Agenda

  1. Announcements
    • LIGO-GEO paper provisionally accepted.
  2. Update on status of S5 1st Year All-Sky Low-Frequency Burst Search Paper [ HTML ]
    • Status of the paper - Michele: many plots are missing but people are committed to other work so these are not forthcoming. Cosmetic changes can still be made. Not likely possible to get a draft before the collaboration meeting.
    • Q-Pipeline S5 Y1 Review Summary Table [ HTML ]
      • About 50% completely complete, 25% mostly complete, 25% to be done. Documentation needs to be fixed to reflect changes of pipeline and data analysis since Shourov's thesis. Questions about post-processing scripts that needs to be looked at.
      • Good back-of-envelope calculation of thresholds.
      • Needs to be MDC study of calibration uncertainty.
      • Need to write a Q-Pipeline Review document based on Michele's document.
      • Timeline: Not much before Amsterdam. Give about 1 month after to wrap-up (a little aggressive). Sign off by 1 Nov.
    • Summary of the CWB S5Y1 review work [ PDF ]
      • From slides: "Code review completed, report available ; Analisis review ongoing but in advance ; stage: Figures of merit reviewed, Multiple sanity tests performed, Segment list and livetime checked for different configurations, Analisis review preliminary draft available"
      • From slides: "Pending work: Walkthrough of specific production and post production scripts (2 teleconferences); Complete analytical estimation of CWB Efficiency curves (baseline study available but some discrepancies still need to be resolved for non-linearly polarized waveforms); Complete Analysis report"
      • Timeline: 4-5 weeks including this week and the LSC meeting for completing. Safe guess is November 1.
    • BlockNormal:
      • Mature draft of report. Still need to look at loud background events. Have gone through code.
      • No estimate of timeline at the moment, but review is very advanced.
  3. Planning for review of S5 2nd Year All-Sky Low-Frequency Burst Search.
    • How much do review teams need to do to bring review up to 2nd year search? Statement of work required.
    • Michele: cWB - repeat what was done for first year. Need to consider taking Virgo into place -- need to think what would need to happen here. Check figures of merit. Check postprocessing scripts which might be different. Will review members commit to second year? Will be answered next cWB review call.
      New version of code (2nd year of S5 vs. LIGO-GEO) needs to be reivewed -- use of four detector configuration script.
      FOM already seen for second year.
    • Q-Pipeline: Dave is stepping down as chair of the Q-Pipeline for second year analysis. New chair needed. Q-Pipeline is being reinvented as Omega-Pipeline. Fair amount of code review required for 2nd year. Essentially a new review for the second year. Primarily the scripts that setup jobs etc. are changing.
  4. Equinox
    • Important for review committee: with what we have now, how much do we believe what is being stated. Want a confidence.
    • Michele: need to make sure that the new pipeline does not miss loud injections. Fairly good confidence, but not quite clear how to phrase the level of confidence.
    • What is needed to convene the Detection Committee? Does the group need to claim a detection first? DAC is the group that convenes the Detection Committee. If burst group makes a definite statement then it needs to be brought to the Detection Committee.
    • Burst group should make a definite statement about the event before bringing it to the Detection Committee.
    • Plan is to bring an abstract forward that says that we saw an event with 1/30 yr chance, but not to claim it as a true detection.
    • This event is pretty far from being a gold-plated event.
    • Review document [ HTML ]
  5. Report on 1st Year All-Sky High-Frequency search. pdf slides review summary table latest draft
    • Keita - V3 calibration vetted only up to 3kHz. Want to use the calibration up to 6.5kHz. 50% amplitude is probably safe uncertainty. But need calib ctte to approve this. Also phase. Past experience suggests that this will take 2 months. Time consuming part is for somebody to look at data and produce plots, doesn't really depend on how accurate calibration is to be. Recommendation: don't use V3 calibration for HF. Each group has nominated two people to participate in calibration committee. These people have been tasked with looking at h(t) validation rather than FD validation. Need burst group people to participate in HF calibration FD calibration. Timescale of V4 HF FD calibration is 3 months. 4-5 months for h(t).
    • Options: 1. Significant burst group involvement to validate the use of V3 calibration (with large uncertainties) at high frequencies in the 1-2 month timeframe. 2. Wait for the V4 calibration h(t) in 4-5 month timeframe.
    • Brennan is concerned about running on V4 about how much review will need to be repeated. Also concern is wanted to follow the low frequency paper - not sure can do this on the same timescale.
    • Siong thinks it is a good idea to show this paper to the LSC with clear statement that it is not the final version to be shown to the LSC. Erik agrees: we should solicit comments from the LSC. Should promote the paper as mature.
    • MAP: what is to be lost by skipping the presentation this time? Concerned that the collaboration is tired of seeing same material multiple times. Brennan: agrees - let's not present the paper twice in two collaboration meetings.
    • Siong's committee: can say that the paper is in good shape but not complete. Calibration issue. Haven't completed sensitivity checks. Haven't done everything they want to. Astrophysical injections has been looked at but hasn't been checked to conclusion. Review is not closed-out.
  6. A.O.B.
$Id: minutes-2008-09-15.html,v 1.6 2008/09/15 18:32:05 jolien Exp $