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

Minutes of 2008-May-08 S5 QPipeline Review Teleconference

Attendance

Shourov Chatterji, Jonah Kanner, Isabel Leonor, Dave Reitze

Minutes by Isabel Leonor.

Announcements

Agenda

  • Jolien and the burst review committee will soon start considering the combined S5 1st year paper and need to start hearing reports from the individual analysis reviews.
  • Paper taking shape here. Still very rough.
  • Cross validation of Matlab based segment tools used for some of the QPipeline analysis with segwizard based tools used by Laura to produce data quality segments (test1, test2, test3).
  • Final segment lists including veto and data quality posted . QPipeline results need to be updated to use these final segments.
  • Have not had time to address action items from past two calls.
  • Minutes

    
    * Dave:  Jolien sent out email with request for review closure.
    
      Plan for Monday's burst review telecon:  Dave will write a few paragraphs
      about status of QPipeline review, and include list of action items.  Dave will
      not be able to attend Monday telecon, but Jonah and Isabel will attend.
    
    * Went on to discuss Shourov's posted agenda for today.
    
      Shourov:  This will be a short call.
    
      Dave:  Paper is taking shape.  Can you walk us through Patrick's method for
      combining upper limits?
    
      Shourov:  Patrick is writing CGQ paper about this.  For the Orsay meeting,
      goal is to have a picture of the paper, and present the results.
    
      Shourov then shows us where to find link to Patrick's presentation at a 
      burst telecon.  It can be found on the agenda page for the February 13
      burst telecon:
    
      http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/bursts/investigations/general/misc/incoming/1202925.637-MultiPipe.pdf.pdf
    
      Shourov briefly goes through some of the slides, i.e. slide #3, 4, 5, 8, 9.
      A key point seems to be the plot on slide #5 which shows single-pipeline
      efficiencies and combined efficiencies.
    
      Dave:  On slide five, the purple curve shows that the end result is worse
      than that from either pipeline.
    
      Jonah:  There is potentially a lot of information here.  It gives ability to
      say which injections are seen by one pipeline but not another.  This will be
      put to the test.  Using the same MDCs, the same amplitude, this is good.
    
      Shourov:  That will feature in the paper.
    
      Isabel:  In this procedure of combining upper limits, do the different 
      pipelines use the same false alarm threshold?
    
      Shourov:  The burst group decided that the threshold be the same for the
      different pipelines, but this is not necessary.
    
      Dave (to Shourov):  Is there anything else to point out in paper?  It is in
      pretty rudimentary state.
    
      Shourov:  It needs cleaning up.
    
    * Shourov then mentioned cross-validation of QPipeline Matlab segment tools with 
      segwizard tools.  The results from the two are the same.
    
      Shourov:  This is just a piece of the check of post-processing scripts.  There
      are still the C++ scripts to be checked.
    
    * Shourov then mentioned the availability of final segment lists.  This includes
      most recent version of DQ flags and also veto flags.  The QPipeline results
      need to be updated using these final segments.
    
    * Shourov:  Have not had chance to address list of past action items.  Maybe we
      should not have meeting next week so these things can be worked on.
    
      Dave:  Will be on a plane next week.
    
      Jonah:  Will be in a car.
    
      All:  Agree to not have a telecon next week.
    
      Isabel (to Shourov):  For the update using the final segments, will you have
      to re-run QPipeline on the data?
    
      Shourov:  No, even though there may be slight changes in Category 1 segments.
      Category 2 and Category 3 flags are applied post analysis, so this only
      requires masking triggers.
     
      Small changes in Category 1 segments probably do not matter much, especially
      since QPipeline uses 64-second analysis blocks, unlike for example the 
      1024-second blocks used by inspiral group.  Category 1 flag means data is
      so bad.
    
      Jonah:  What are the differences in livetimes for the different pipelines?
    
      Shourov:  Venn diagrams in paper shows the different livetimes.
    
      Jonah:  It is awkward to try and explain why different pipelines ran on
      different Category 1 data sets.  If the difference is small, then it doesn't
      matter.  It would be nice to know this.  The different pipelines will have
      slightly different livetimes anyway, because of different ways of processing
      data, i.e. different ways of handling edges, etc.  The effect is the same in
      that the livetime is slightly different for different pipelines.  So if effect
      of different Category 1 segments is marginal, then it's okay.
    
    

    Action Items

    $Id: minutes_20080515.html,v 1.3 2008/05/16 02:41:12 leonor Exp $