LSC/VIRGO Stochastic Analysis Review


Review Home
StochReview List/Archive
Stochastic ilog
Stochastic list/Archive


Conferences 2007
Edit these pages


Status of Reviews

Agenda and Minutes, 19 September 2006

Agenda: Tues, 19 September 2006

1) Announcements
   a) Allegro review status
   b) Grischuk/notation tech note

2) Review and discuss Stefan's reply to last weeks inquiries

3) Continue review of Stefan's thesis/radiometer technical document

4) AOB


| 20060919-minutes.txt - Minutes from Stoch. Rev. meeting, Sept. 19, 2006.
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (
|  Last Modified : Tue Sep 19 05:00 PM 2006 C


Stuart, Nelson, Robert

1) Announcements
   a) Allegro review status
   b) Grischuk/notation tech note

2) Review and discuss Stefan's reply to last weeks inquiries

Add to wish list: - recover all sky hardware injections.
                  - recover 4th loudest pulsar injection.
Requirements: - error bar should appear in table I.

3) Continue review of Stefan's thesis/radiometer technical document.
Add to wish list: - estimate diurnal variation systematic using software 
                  - estimate analytically freq bin acceptance from Hanning 

Requirements: - bias from strong signal a la romano
              - do multiple software injections with a variety of signal
                strengths and sky positions.

Timing transient:
Add to wish list : - Compare timing transient waveform from first half of run 
                     to second?
Requirements: - provide figure like Fig 3.7 after subtraction of transients.
              - show that timing transient subtraction in L1 produces similar

Data cuts:
Requirements - information on locations of intermediate results so Robert can
               check bookeeping. 
             - post processing cuts like all-sky (as requested).
             - show analysis is insensitive to post-proc threshold. 

4) Harry keeps missing - do we need a new time-slot?

Related Email

Subject: Issues from today's Stochastic Review telecon
From: Warren G Anderson 
  To: Stefan Ballmer 
  CC: Stuart Anderson , 
      Warren Anderson , 
      Nelson Christensen , 
      Robert Schofield , 
      Harry Ward 
  Date: 2006-09-19 15:31


Here is a list of issues that were raised in today's StochRev telecon.

1) Units
   a) The committee is satisfied with the proposed changes regarding the units 
      in the Radiometer paper.

2) Injections
   a) The review committee would like the error bar from Table 3.4 of your 
      thesis to appear explicitly in Table I of your paper. We feel that the 
      main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, within error, the
      hardware injections are recovered. The explicit appearance of the error
      bar facilitates this. Please also state explicitly in Table I (or the 
      caption) what the error bar is (one sigma).

   b) Please (if you have not already done so) to do multiple software 
      injections with a variety of signal strengths and a variety of RAs and 
      Decs and provide the results in tabular form.
   c) Please look at the "loud signal" bias calculation for the all-sky 
      statistic (by Romano?) and determine if this could account for the 5% 
      bias for the loudest injected pulsar (low priority).

   d) We would like you to analyze the 4th loudest pulsar hardware injection 
      as you did for the three loudest and show us the marginal/null result 
      (lower priority/wish list).
   e) Estimate the systematic due to diurnal variations in the noise floor. 
      This could be done, for instance, using software injections? (low 
      priority/wish list).

   f) Estimate the systematic due to frequency bin acceptance when using a 
      Hanning window. This might be possible to estimate analytically (wish 
   g) We would be interested in seeing, if possible, the recovery of an 
      all-sky stochastic hardware injection via the radiometer version of the 
      all-sky statistic (wish list).

3) Timing:
   a) We would like to see the evidence that the timing transient subtraction 
      worked - e.g. a plot like Fig 3.7 from your thesis with the timing 
      transient subtracted.
   b) Repeat the timing transient subtraction, but use L1 this time, and show 
      that the results are the same as for H1.
   c) Compare the timing transient waveform estimated from the first half of 
      S4 to that from the second half of S4 to verifythat the transient is 
      stationary over the run, as assumed (low priority).

4) Cuts:
   a) Provide bookkeeping information (e.g. GPS times analyzed) to Robert 
      Schofield for verification.
   b) Use Vuk's post-processing cuts and compare results to your cuts.
   c) Show that analysis is insensitive to post-processing cut threshold as 

We can discuss if some of these items are too onerous/unnecessary/already done 
at the next telecon.


+================[ WARREN G. ANDERSON ]====================+
| 15 Sierra Vista Terr. SW          (403) 212-1426 HOME    |
| Calgary AB, T3H-3C4, CANADA                              |
| P.O. Box 413,                     (414) 559-5366 US CELL |
| Dept. of Physics                  (414) 229-3323 OFFICE  |
| Milwaukee WI, 53201, USA          (414) 229-5589 FAX     |
$Id: 060919.html,v 1.4 2006/10/31 01:18:40 warren Exp $