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

S4 LIGO-GEO Burst Review Committee Meeting Wednesday 13 February 2008 10:00 Eastern

Minutes: Wednesday 13 February 2008 10:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info


  1. Comments on current draft of paper. [ Revision: 1.25 Date: 13 February 2008 ]
  2. Discussion of further checks/tests to be requested.
  3. 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#



Klimenko, Riles, Sutton (minutes).

Walk-through of Agenda Items

  1. Comments on current draft of paper. [ Revision: 1.25 Date: 13 February 2008 ]
    • Email from Siong Heng:
      Here is what I have changed:
      • minor typos and comments from Norna Robertson
      • added references to Flanagan and Hughes as well as Andresson et al. for coherent burst searches
      • added footnote to explain why there is no factor of 2 for equation 3
      • changed figure 8 to now plot the correct hrss50% and I added labels for the markers directly into the legend for the plot
      • adjust the ordering of the references to match the order they are referenced in the paper
      • swap the order of figures 1 and 2 to match order of reference in text
    • Sutton: Not enough time before telecon to study paper carefully, but did notice one problem: inconsistency in observation times. Section 4 quotes 13.9 dy = 334 hr of 4X data after DQ cuts. Section 5 says 253 hr analysed by both pipelines? What happened to other 81 hr? Needs to be resolved.
      Klimenko: Suspects 13.9 dy is before DQ cuts, not after.
      Action item: To be resolved (Heng).
  2. Discussion of further checks/tests to be requested.
    • Sutton: The ``results'' in the paper are: no detection; observation time; FAR of searches; efficiency of searches. Not worried about possible few-percent errors in observation time or FAR, since we have no detection candidate and we are not quoting an upper limit. Therefore want to concentrate on tests of efficiency, which also imply confidence in the ``no detection'' statement. Propose following tests:
      1. Analytic sensitivity estimates of the hrss50% points for the WB-CP and cWB pipelines. Ideally, should be able to estimate these values to few x 10%. Jolien and Sergei have already done some work on this for incoherent WB in S4. Failing that, estimate the relative sensitivity of WB-CP vs. cWB.
      2. Look at injections for one of the loudest injection scales. Missed injections should be those with lowest antenna response factors. Should be sufficient to check for one waveform type, e.g, 849 Hz SGs.
        Riles: Did similar checks for cWB internal review for a fair sample of missed injections. Missed injections tended to be pathological cases of antenna response.
        Action item: Klimenko to send link to these tests (web page or document).
        Riles: Also check loud injections missed by WB-CP but found by cWB. These should be due to poor GEO response.
      3. Check MDC coverage of coincidence observation time. Sanity check for systematics: want to see similar coverage by WB-CP and cWB, and that the MDCs cover the whole analysed run.
      4. Riles: The coincidence test between LIGO and GEO requires that the timing accuracy of GEO be good to the millisecond level. Sure that this is true, but we should have a statement from a GEO instrumentalist documented somewhere that confirms this.
  3. A.O.B.
    • Riles will study current draft carefully over the weekend. Heng should hold off on releasing any new versions while the review committee draws up (final?) list of requested changes.


$Id: minutes-2008-02-13.html,v 1.3 2008/02/14 16:56:48 psutton Exp $