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 05 March 2008 10:00 Eastern

Minutes: Wednesday 05 March 2008 10:00 Eastern

Agenda and Contact Info

Agenda

  1. Comments on current draft of paper. [ Revision: 1.19 Date: 04 March 2008 ]
  2. Discussion of further checks/tests to be requested.
    Proposed tests:
    1. Analytic sensitivity estimates of the hrss50% points for the WB-CP and cWB pipelines.
    2. Look at injections for one of the loudest injection scales. Missed injections should be those with lowest antenna response factors.
    3. Check MDC coverage of coincidence observation time.
    4. Verification of the timing accuracy of GEO.
  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#

Minutes

Walk-through of Agenda Items

  1. Comments on current draft of paper. [ Revision: 1.19 Date: 04 March 2008 ]
    • Discussion of meaning of rank SNR. Klimenko explained. Sutton: Important to add some text explaining briefly what this is, because we threshold on the rho_eff that is defined from it.
    • Sutton: Delete argument "t" from antenna responses in text following equation (1).
    • Sutton: Should add comment to comparison of cWB to LIGO-only analysis, explaining that different frequency ranges were studied. Klimenko: LIGO-only analysis used frequency-dependent cut to help avoid low-frequency glitches. Should keep that in mind when making comparison - thresholds different.
    • Riles: Delete "implement" and "first" from discussion of papers by Flanagan and Hughes, Gursel and Tinto in introduction. His recollection: Neither paper implemented a search. Also, odd to group FH as "first" with GT since ~9 year lag between papers.
    • Riles: Figure 3 still to be fixed.
    • Riles: Definition of sigma_k too vague.
  2. Discussion of further checks/tests to be requested.
    1. Analytic sensitivity estimates of the hrss50% points for the WB-CP and cWB pipelines.
      • Sutton: Studied notes by Creighton and Klimenko on iWB sensitivity - look good. Trying to figure out how to do matching analysis for cWB.
      • Klimenko: Gabriele Vedovato has doen estimates of the hrss50% points for cWB in the high-frequency search. Calculates PSD at the time of the injection, compute detected SNR. Able to estimate hrss50% and compare to reconstructed value. Can get to accuracy of ~30%.
      • Klimenko: Can estimate coherent SNR ~ 1/sqrt{2} x likelihood to 1/2 x likelihood. For low SNR, rank SNR ~ SNR.
      • Klimenko: In paper use rho_eff threshold of 3.4 = avg SNR / detector. Therefore estimate (3.4)^ x 4 ~ 40. Look at effective SNR for a given hrss and compare to 40.
    2. Look at injections for one of the loudest injection scales. Missed injections should be those with lowest antenna response factors.
    3. Check MDC coverage of coincidence observation time.
      • Klimenko: All injection runs completed for both iWB and cWB. Analysis intervals were the same, therefore should be no problem. Quick check: Should find (number of injections) x 100 sec ~ (observation time).
    4. Verification of the timing accuracy of GEO.
      • Heng circulated link to GEO instrument paper stating timing uncertainty was 60 microsec systematic + 16 microsec statistical: Timing accuracy of the GEO 600 data acquisition system K Kotter, M Hewitson and H Ward Class. Quantum Grav. 21 No 5 (7 March 2004) S493-S500

MEETING ADJOURNED

$Id: minutes-2008-03-05.html,v 1.5 2008/03/17 01:16:29 psutton Exp $