S2 S3 S4 GRB GWB Search Review Summary
GWDAW 11, December 2006We reviewed the slides [ PDF ]. There are some changes we feel should be made to this presentation. We recommend provisional approval of this presentation pending resolution of the remaining issues identified by the review committee. These issues are:
- Correction of definition of hrss.
- Correction of energy statement to bring them in line with other presentations.
- Checking of definition of SNR and corresponding energy limit.
These items have been resolved in Version 5 of the presentation [ PDF ]. We recommend final approval of this presentation.
Texas Symposium, December 2006We reviewed the slide [ PPT ]. We recommend approval of this slide for presentation. (The speaker should be aware of the different meanings of "sensitivty" energies that appear on this slide.)
LSC November Meeting 2006Current version "final draft" of paper [ PDF ].
- Update technical document and cross-reference all numbers
- Check systematic errors
- Check 99% conf. belt
- Decide if injections need to be done in off-source
- Check the energetics calculation
- Review population constraint calculation
- Check the data in the tables (again) where possible
- Try to reproduce the cross-corr values
LSC August Meeting 2006We have looked at the draft paper [ PDF ]. We made several comments on the text. Outstanding tasks:
- Understand to what extent the binomial test is complementary to the rank-sum test: do we need multiple methods?
- Systematic errors need to be computed.
- Try to reproduce the cross-corr values.
- Missing sections need to be written
- Review energetics calculation
- Review population study
- Comments on draft need to be addressed
APS April Meeting 2006We have reviewed the slides [ PDF ]. We recommend approval of this presentation but we would like to consider the energetics statements further. Unresolved issues:
- Energetics calculation:
- Are energies computed in the same was as in the GRB030329 paper?
- Are these energies for a specific GRB (i.e., the one with the best hrss90 limit), or is it for a statment of sensitivity? If the former, need to account for the known beam pattern function.
- Slides do not make it clear that the energy is not really a bound for any particular GRB. Could perhaps be understood as a lower limit for detectablity at a distance.
- hrss90 limits seem about right but would be nice to be able to understand them better from first principles. Also, large fluctuations seen in these limits in S5. Is this due to changing instrument sensitivity?
Prior to the March LSC Meeting 2006 we reviewed these slides [ PDF ]. Here was the review summary at that time:
- Data conditioning seems rudimentary. However, replacement with an alternative data conditioning scheme yields very little change. We still need to see effects of different data conditioning scheme on the on-source cc value.
- Binomial test needs to be justified. Under what source population would this method be better than, say, just a loudest event test? Need to assess whether a different similar method wouldn't work just as well.
- Code review is near complete. Strong recommendation to reuse code rather than cut-and-pasting it between different scripts. Efficiency studies should use the same analysis as the search itself so as to avoid inconsistencies in the code.
- Need to check calibration signs between H1 and H2 for the S2, S3, and S4 calibration versions used.
- Systematic uncertainties (e.g., from calibration) eventually need to be incorporated into results.
- Not yet clear if linearly polarized sine Gaussians or another signal waveform (with circular polarization) should be used for sensitivity estimates. Linearly polarized is unlikely to be observed. Need to consider alternatives.
- Sensitivity estimates need to use the same pipeline as actual search. This means that a 180s segment needs to be analyzed rather than a shorter segment.
- Need to double check alpha and gamma reading code.
- Time delay and antenna pattern are being correctly computed.
- Population study: code review beginning. Have only had a first look at the method.
- Should the cc values be weighted when forming the detection statistic?
- Still need to understand the new detection statistics.
- Expectation is that the hypothesis test result but not the upper limit will be reported at the APS meeting.