S4 LIGO-GEO Review Summary
Establishment of Paper Review Team, October 2007Known "issues" with the software used:
- (Klimenko) The s4 LG analysis is based on wat-4.4.3. I think there is no need to go back to the source code again, since the cWB reviewers have already done it in detailes.
- (Klimenko) The only issue with the sourco code is that we no longer use wat-4.4.3 for the analysis. We do not plan to reanalyse the s4 LG data with the newer version because the s4 box has been opened.
GWDAW 11, December 2006We reviewed the slides [ PDF ]. There are some changes we feel should be made to this presentation and some results that we have not yet approved. We recommend provisional approval of this presentation pending resolution of the remaining issues identified by the review committee and the approval of certain results by the code review committee. These issues are:
- Resolution of question about the "new event" that was not presented last year.
- Efficiencies have not yet been approved by the code review team. They need to be approved or removed.
In addition to the above items, errors in the sensitivity plots were found.
These items have been resolved in Version 6 of the presentation [ PDF ]. The additional event was determined to be due to a slight change in CorrPower. We recommend final approval of this presentation.
Note: this presentation contains material labeled "work in progress". It is unclear whether this material is to approved for dissemination at GWDAW only.
GWDAW 10 Presentation SummaryWe reviewed the Version 2 slides [ PDF ] See minutes for details.
- Most of the analysis is already reviewed or in advanced stages of review as it is the same as in the S4 LIGO-only search
- Checks of MDC frames were made for GEO too. Only issue is the "arm 2" "arm 1" vs. "x arm" "y arm" confusion. Irrelevant for this analysis.
- 4-fold coincidence of waveburst seems OK but NOT FORMALLY REVIEWED
- Triggers clustered at 1s intervals in GEO (due to calibration procedure) do not seem to cause problems.
- Efficiencies with GEO only 30-40% worse than LIGO only at similar false rate. However efficiency curves are steeper.