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

S4 LIGO-GEO Burst Review Committee Meeting Wednesday 19 December 2007 12:00 Eastern

Minutes: Wednesday 19 December 2007 10:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info

Agenda

  1. Comments on current draft of paper. [ Keith's marked-up version ]
  2. A.O.B.

Contact Info

  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#

Minutes

Agenda

  1. Comments on current draft of paper.
    Heng: All suggested modifications have been accepted.
    • Fixing tenses and typos.
    • Fixed references to frequency range (made consistent).
    • Action item: Figure 1 is to be updated.
    • Checked Figure 2 with Creighton - okay (hour angle plotted increasing from left to right). Sutton also double-checked plot.
      Action item: Heng will render contour-style.
    • Added reference to symlet wavelet.
    • Figure 3 not very useful.
      Action item: Will be improved or deleted.
    • Action item: Klimenko to provide cWB reference.
    • Action item: Replace eqn (8) by hrss, since that is quantity used in results plots and tables.
    • Action item: Yakushin to regenerate Figure 4.
    • Sutton asked about whether \rho_eff is amplitude or energy measure.
      Klimenko: \rho_eff proportional to hrss in ideal case (amplitude measure).
    • Sutton: Section 2 has much more detail on GEO than on LIGO; seems imbalanced.
      Heng: Felt that additional detail on LIGO available in references; not that case for GEO. Will see if he can modify the text.
    • Sutton: Can we make some analytic argument or estimate of the relative sensitivity of WB+CP vs. cWB? Would add great methodological value to the paper.
      Klimenko: Why is cWB better in Table 2? Short answer is that it is not limited by the least sensitive detector.
      Sutton: Perhaps can estimate effect from noise curves in Figure 6.
    • Action item: Heng will add hrss50% points for cWB to Figure 6, for easy comparison to WB+CP.
    • Action item: Heng to ask Yakushin about updated cWB efficiencies.
  2. A.O.B.
    • Heng unavailable for telecons until Jan 9. Next meeting will be then.

MEETING ADJOURNED

$Id: minutes-2007-12-19.html,v 1.2 2008/01/15 23:32:57 psutton Exp $