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

S5 Qpipeline High-Frequency Review Telecon 20th of May 2008 11:00 Eastern

Agenda and minutes of the S5 Qpipeline High-Frequency Review Telecon for Tuesday the 20th of May at 11:00 Eastern time.

Agenda and Contact Info

Agenda

  1. Review of HFS draft
  2. AOB

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

Brennan Hughley, Jonnah Kanner (minutes), Ik Siong Heng

Q-pipeline algorithm:

Jonah: may combine eqns 1 and 2

Jonah: check coefficients in (3) and (4)

Jonah: where did 20 ms come from?

Brennan: smallest we felt was reasonable - especially for more exotic signals where you are not matching exactly the same thing.

Siong: we should quantify the difference between 20 ms and 10 ms.

Joanh: i think the burden is to show that 20 ms is a REASONABLE choice, not the best choice.

Siong: ok. but we also have to be prepared to defend why it is different from the choice in the low-freq. search.

Siong: bottom of pg. 5, justify why corr-power instead of cWB, etc.

Brennan: We don't know normalization of SN waveforms yet, working on it.

Brennan: Crappiness of GA0d5 might be due to low freq content of signal.

Siong: Maybe we should include a table of hrss 50%, 90%

Jonah: Also, maybe quote a characteristic number for the upper limits.

Brennan: not sure what to quote

jonah: ok. let's see what/if any number has been quoted historically.

Siong: my next comment is separating results and conclusions. its not clear from the results section that the thresholds are set with the box closed. that should be made more clear.

Siong: something is fishy with figure 12 - no events at 6.2 w/ gamma

Jonah: yeah, good point.

Jonah: Explain to me why data quality is different from vetoes.

Brennan: I think DQ is treated differently from vetoes

Brennan: With DQ cuts, we bascially had the DQ cuts on a per-instrument basis. So, we didn't use any time lag whatsoever. We looked at the effect on a single instrument. It is a different method for selecting them than the vetoes. You can't have the same standard for what makes a DQ and Veto becuase we are looking at single IFO compared to combined, and the rates are just different. I just tried to set some reasonable standard where I could say this data quality is doing something. 1.7 is where this data quality is doing something - looking at the table, you can see the DQ cuts are doing their job. the auxillary channels is not something i had a lot to do with - we just did the same as low-freq.

Jonah: ok. but i see in the paper a note in the DQ section about "coincident" triggers. it looks like the DQ flags WERE done with 5 second lags

Brennan: oh yeah. i hadn't thought about that at the time. there's no reason i couldn't have done it that way.

Jonah: Has there been a review/documentation of the vetoe selection software.

Brennan: I think the main reference is the S5 low freq paper

Jonah: we should confirm that has been reviewed.

Checks Done: Action Items: Things that still need checked:

MEETING ADJOURNED