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 23 April 2008 10:00 Eastern

Agenda and minutes of the weekly LIGO-GEO S4 Bursts Review telecon, held Wednesdays at 10:00 Eastern time.

Agenda and Contact Info

Agenda

  1. Status of the paper. [ HEAD version ]
  2. Discussion of further checks/tests.
    1. Conclusions of first-principles sensitivity estimates for iWB, cWB [ review report PDF ]
    2. Look at injections for one of the loudest injection scales. Missed injections should be those with lowest antenna response factors.
      • Igor's page of found/missed injections for resampled MDCs: http://ldas-jobs.ligo.caltech.edu/~igor/test_032808a/
        (link corrected after meeting)
      • Histogram of antenna response amplitudes for all missed injections, showing cWB misses injection with bad LHO response [ PDF ]
      • Histogram of minimum antenna response amplitudes for all missed injections, showing no pattern for WB-CP missed injections [ PDF ]
      • Histogram of geometric-mean antenna response amplitudes for all missed injections, showing no pattern for WB-CP missed injections [ PDF ]
  3. Discussion of proposed timeline for completion of review
    • Mon Apr 28: Authors present final version of paper to LIGO-GEO review committee.
    • Mon Apr 28 - Mon May 05: LIGO-GEO reviewers (and any other interested parties) study paper. Reviewers and authors iterate on final minor changes to the paper.
    • Mon May 05: LIGO-GEO review committee gives all-clear; presents paper and review report to burst review committee.
    • Mon May 05 - Mon May 12: Final window for bursts group and bursts review committee to comment on paper. Authors make any necessary *final* changes to the paper.
    • Mon May 12: burst review committee gives all-clear; paper sent to ExecComm.
    • Thu May 15: ExecComm votes on the paper.
    • Thu May 15 - Thu May 22: One week period of final comment from the collaboration (required by policy).
    • Fri May 23: Posting to arXiv.
    • Fri Jun 06: Submission to CQG.
  4. 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

Attendance

Siong Heng, Sergei Klimenko, Keith Riles, Patrick Sutton (minutes), Igor Yakushin.

Walk-through of Agenda Items

  1. Status of the paper.
    • Reference figure 1 in intro. Add description at end section 2 in case reader does not know what F+, Fx are.
    • Add citation to Anderson, Brady, Creighton, and Flanagan , PRD 2001 for explicit formulas for F+, Fx.
    • Notation $\xi$ for received signal not popular. Replace by h(t) in eqn (1).
    • Replace h(t) in text, section 3.2.1 by "strain".
    • Replace h(t) in eqn (14), (15) by something else.
    • Replace $\alpha$ by $\alpha_{GHA}$.
    • Remove word "packet" pages 6, 9, 13.
    • Page 11: "pick out" replace by "select".
    • page 11: Zg not correctly defined. It is assigned to coincident triggers, not single-detector triggers.
  2. Discussion of further checks/tests.
    1. Conclusions of first-principles sensitivity estimates for iWB, cWB.
      • Sutton: Use run-averaged noise spectra, modelling of pipelines and antenna responses with Monte Carlo. With correction of relationship between rank SNR and matched-filter SNR, get acceptable agreement (20% level) between predicted and measured hrss for cWB. Investigation finished.
    2. Look at injections for one of the loudest injection scales.
      • cWB: The histogram of antenna response amplitudes for all missed injections shows cWB misses injection with bad LHO response. This makes sense: because GEO has poor sensitivity, there are no two detectors that show correlated signal, so correlation cut kills the injection.
      • iWB-CP: No patterns. Checked histogram of minimum antenna response amplitudes for all missed injections, also histogram of geometric-mean antenna response amplitudes. Discussed: no conclusions for why. Yakushin suggests he may not be implementing precisely the same cuts that Laura Cadonati used for generating the iWB-CP efficiency results.
      • Action item: Sutton and Yakushin to investigate.
  3. A.O.B.
    • None.

MEETING ADJOURNED

$Id: minutes-2008-04-23.html,v 1.7 2008/05/13 12:49:15 psutton Exp $