LSC-Virgo Burst Analysis Working Group


Burst Group Home
ExtTrig Home
CBC Group Home
LSC, LIGO, Virgo


'How-to' docs
[2008, 2007, earlier]
Talks/Posters [pre-wiki]
Paper plans
White papers


Analysis projects
Old notebook [General, S2, S3, S4, S5]
Virgo workarea
External collabs


Main review page

Minutes of 2008-Mar-10 S5 QPipeline Review Teleconference

This telecon was rescheduled from March 6, 2008. The call started at 11:00 Eastern.


Shourov Chatterji, Jonah Kanner, Dave Reitze

Minutes by Jonah Kanner.



Dave:  should we look again at coincidence window lengths, as suggested
by erik?

Shourov:  no, i think it's fine.  Erik's concern was based on how other 
pipelines do coincidence.  for example, a white noise burst with a 1 s
duration could have peaks at different times at different detecotors.  so,
clustering algorithms might fail.  i'm of the opinion that clusters should
not be used for testing coincidence.  If something is 1 s long, all of those 
tiles are tested for coincidence.

Corrected link:

Reviewing these tests, it seems clear that the 10 ms window is fine.

Dave:  Coming back to white noise burst waveforms, a long waveform does show increased efficiency 
as the window increases:  why are they "worst case"?

Shourov:  Because they are long duration and high bandwidth, so hard for coincidence

Dave:  what does "minor improvement" mean?

Shourov:  Scroll down.  It is of order 1 more injection out of ~38 injections x multiple amplitude 

Dave:  Perhaps you could quantify the rate of "accidental coincidences" ?

Shourov:  hmmm...that might be hard - it's probably wave-form dependant.

Shourov:  Try adding /report.txt to the web address

Dave:  there are 100's in some burst tables, but not others

Shourov:  it seems consistent with the frequency span of the waveforms:  more freq. space 
suggests more accidental coincidences.  

dave and jonah: ok, we're convinced this is ok

Shourov:  status:  did trigger production for h1h2 zero lag.  if we want to test zero-lag background
h1h2 time-shifted with L1

jonah:  does that run a danger of 'peeking' in the box?

shourov:  well - maybe.  if you do limited time lags, it might be ok.  one reason i moved things
 around is to clean up 

go to ~shorov/s5qreview/triggers/s5

shorov:  these are various levels of trigger posproduction.  step 5 is coincidence.

go to 5/H1H2L1/RAW

some interesting things are that for high scale, you get more triggers than you did for singe detector

H1L1 and H2L1 are options, but they are low priority.
Re-mapping is step 6 that is in progress

One issue in previous versions of code is that i was using H1H2 coherent as measure of significance 
- one consequence was that mainly H1 level triggers were left over, and those depended very 
little on time slides - so time slides were not independent

Now that significance is based partly on correlated energy, as you time-slide time shifts are 
more independant, and you can use the time-shifts to train the re-mapping

The only worry is that real GW's would show up in time slides, and so devalue themselves

I've played around to convince myself that the issue is better - i hope to show that, using the 
playground day, the correlated energy is better with the re-mapping.

Shourov:  go to /s5qreview/old/scatter/likelihood
here we see some notes about a bayesian type approach
the problem is that the probabities we get depend on the probabilities we inject
the nice property is that in coherent/correlated space, injections lie on a line
so, as a measure of 'how GW like', we can use  a measure of how far from line in 
hard-corr space

So, i think that's we're things stand.  the final step is defining this re-mapping
and then i should be ready to open the box.

Dave and Jonah:  we need time to digest this

shourov:  ok, well, this is what i'm working on now as well.

dave:  should we meet this thrusday??

Shourov:  i will likely be travelling on thurday

dave:  ok - then we'll wait to hear from you.

Action Items

$Id: minutes_20080310.html,v 1.2 2008/03/11 20:41:13 leonor Exp $