S4 LIGO-GEO Burst Review Committee Meeting Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:00 Eastern
Minutes: Wednesday 14 November 2007 10:00 Eastern
Agenda and Contact Info
- Status of action items from previous telecon.
- List of actions needed for completing review:
InterCall telecon service:
USA (toll-free): 1-866-616-1738
UK (toll-free): 0800 073 8914
Italy (toll-free): 800-906-494
Germany (toll-free): 0800-1014-907
participant code: 251 288 9495#
Siong Heng, Keith Riles, Patrick Sutton (minutes), Michele Zanolin.
- Status of action items from previous telecon
(Heng) First plot on summary page (tiff) is not visible in some browsers.
Replace by png/gif/etc.
(H) Check segment lists, DQ flags for WP+CP (send pointer to elog entry).
DONE (but still to be compared with cWB)
(Heng) Present cWB/WB+CP efficiencies for resampled MDCs.
IN PROGRESS - Laura to make efficiency curves, Igor and Sergei to do for cWB.
(Heng) Submit tech document on WB+CP analysis to DCC.
Check segment lists, DQ flags for cWB.
Check on the tag versions of WB/cWB used for S4-LIGO-GEO.
on analytic sensitivity estimates for WB+CP in S4
Check that link to cWB review document on bulletin board is correct
and that document is up-to-date.
DONE - Link is to up-to-date document.
Circulate proposal for regular weekly telecons on Wednesdays at
DONE - no complaints received.
List of actions needed for completing review
- Riles brought up the issue last week that the incoherent WB review probably did not test the 4-detector codes fully.
Action item: Zanolin will look over the codes and review docments and put together a formal statement of what aspects of the codes (if any) need further reviewing.
- Since there are not many outstanding code issues, the reviewers agreed to
focus on reviewing the paper.
Riles reported that in the first incoherent WB review, the accounting of
livetime was difficult, and several bugs were found in the analysis and post-processing
codes related to the livetime calculation. These led to few-percent erros on the livetime
calculations. This was much improved in the second
review, but it is an issue we should check carefully for LIGO-GEO.
We'll want to compare the segment lists and DQ flags for the WB+CP and cWB pipelines.
We'll want to do some by-had follow-ups of a few of the louder missed injections,
as a sanity check of the pipelines. E.g., is there a correlation between the sky position
of missed injections and the detector antenna responses?
Heng has given the current draft (2 months old) to Ken Strain for comment and is
waiting for a response.
Sutton has also made a list of comments on the current draft.
Zanolin and Riles will hold off on reading the draft until Heng has updated it with Sutton's and Strain's comments. When the new draft is available, the reviewers will draw up a
more complete list of issues/items to be done to complete the review.
Action item: Sutton will forward his comments to Heng ASAP.
Action item: Heng will forward the updated draft.
Action item: Riles and Zanolin will comment on the updated draft when it is available.
$Id: minutes-2007-11-14.html,v 1.2 2007/11/14 16:16:23 psutton Exp $