S4 LIGO-GEO Burst Review Committee Meeting Wednesday 30 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
- Updates on outstanding action items from April 29 special telecon.
- Igor will generate cross-check tables for the incoherent pipeline from Laura's trigger lists.
- Igor will check if there is a discrepancy (and how big) between final injection lists for coherent and incoherent pipelines. It will check if the same data is used for estimation of the sensitivity. [ WEB ]
- Siong will check what DQ flags were used in the incoherent analysis and whether the bad 10 days period was included or not.
- Igor will regenerate efficiency curves for the resampling procedure used for the incoherent analysis and S4 paper.
- Status of the paper. [ HEAD version ]
Reminder: 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.
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#
- Igor circulated link to page with information on segment lists for injection runs.
- setdiff(cWB,iWB)/livetime(cWB) ~ 2.2%. That is, about 2.2% of cWB livetime is not analysed by iWB. This is why the Igor's estimates of the iWB-CP efficiency saturate at ~98%.
- setdiff(iWB,cWB)/livetime(cWB) ~ 20%. That is, iWB analysed about 20% more data than cWB. Patrick: Siong circulated plot showing duty cycle in first bad 10 days of GEO data was about 30%, and 60% for the remaining 20 days. So this extra 20% of iWB livetime is consistent with the first 10 days being included in the iWB-CP analysis but not cWB.
- (Siong) Determine whether or not WB-CP triggers (zero-lag and background) include the 10 days at the start of the run that should have been rejected.
- (Siong, Laura) Determine whether or not WB-CP injection triggers include the 10 days at the start of the run that should have been rejected.
- (Igor) Resolve the discrepancy between the 272 hr livetime Igor presented today and the 259 hr in the paper.
- (Igor) Regenerate his found-missed tables using a common set of injections for WB-CP and cWB.
- (Igor) Provide Siong with densely sampled efficiency sigmoids suitable for use in Fig 7.
- All: The accounting of livetimes should be done on a web page that can be linked to so that everyone can find it, and see updates as they are made.