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

X-Pipeline Review Meeting Monday 11 May 2009 09:00 Pacific / 12:00 Eastern

Agenda: Monday 11 May 2009 09:00 Pacific / 12:00 Eastern

  1. Open-box ULs estimated using linear interpolation twiki (Gareth)
  2. Calibration test with X-Pipeline (Patrick)
  3. Rate density of local GRBS twiki (Patrick)
  4. Continue walking through results webpages. GRB 070809

Minutes:

Attendance: Gareth, Patrick, Jolien, Peter

  1. Open-box ULs estimated using linear interpolation twiki (Gareth)
    • Linear interpolation between first point with > 90% efficiency with previous point. 10% upward correction. Interpolation in efficiency vs log-injection-scale rather than injection-scale? I think they should be done in log-injection-scale. This should result in slightly smaller corrections.
    • Uncertainties: have a 90% point and a slope. Vertical error bar will be binomial error bar at 90% efficiency for 250 injection. Actually, the way the calibration uncertainty is done, it should also account for the monte carlo uncertainty. So just need this.
    • Let's look at the cumulative diagram of the lower limit on distance.
    • Compare with CBC GRB paper... the numbers for 0.1 msun emission is a factor of a few better than the CBC numbers. Propose using 0.01 msun instead ... this makes the plot more comperable and this is about the amount of energy (scaled to isotropic approximation) that is emitted by BNS inspiral in the ~150 Hz region. Let's do 1%.
    • Don't know if search is actually more sensitive to the CBC search for binary inspirals....
    • Just need to redo calibration uncertainty uncertainties.
  2. Calibration test with X-Pipeline (Patrick)
    • Just need to redo calibration uncertainty uncertainties.
  3. Rate density of local GRBS twiki (Patrick)
    • For S5, need to account for Swift field-of-view.
    • Need to rescale to 1% msun emission.
    • Update to local rate.
    • Suggest writing equation with the factors involving local rate and assumed Eiso (as ratios of assumed value) explicitly shown.
  4. Continue walking through results webpages. GRB 070809
  5. What remains to be done?
    • Summary [ HTML ].
    • No longer doing Wilcoxon rank-sum test. It checks for a bulk population of weak signals, which is not a really meaningful test. Just stick with binomial test.
    • Would like to see the binomial plot. I'll try to find the formula for the stair-step for the 1% region.
    • LI.
    • Redo calibration with LI.
    • Deal with comments.
    • 10% msun to 1% msun change.
    • Try cumulative distance curve.
    • Binomial plot.
    • Sanity plots of injections, checks of logfiles, etc.
    • Mention running cc pipeline -- substatiate statement that it adds robustness, was useful, etc. Sanity check. Get Isabel's ULs which are a factor of 2 worse generally. Check for all of the GRBs: are there any for which she was more sensitive? What is the smallest ratio of sensitivity?

$Id: minutes-2009-05-11.html,v 1.2 2009/05/11 17:04:19 jolien Exp $