LSC/VIRGO Stochastic Analysis Review

Navigation

Review Home
StochReview List/Archive
Stochastic ilog
Stochastic list/Archive
LSCsoft CVS
LSC, LIGO
VIRGO
ALLEGRO

Docs

Conferences 2007
Edit these pages

Review

Overview
Members
Minutes
Status of Reviews

Agenda and Minutes, 11 November 2006

Agenda: Tues, 11 November 2006

1) News - December meeting review schedule.
2) S4 All-sky paper - final look before publication.
   Latest (hopefully final) version and Ap J referee comments and our 
   replies linked on the stochastic review webpage at:
      http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/sbwg/ (standard cheerleading login)
3) Comments on latest version of S4 Allegro-LLO paper.
4) AOB
  

Minutes

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 20061114-minutes.txt - minutes from the Nov 14 Stochastic Review telecon.
|
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (warren@gravity.phys.uwm.edu)
|
|  Last Modified : Tue Nov 28 05:00 PM 2006 C
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attending: Warren, Stuart, John, Vuk, Nelson, Martin, 


1) News - December meeting review schedule.
  - preview presentations no later than Nov 27th.
  - reviewer recommendations due by Nov 28th at the latest.
    
2) S4 All-sky paper - final look before publication.
   Latest (hopefully final) version and Ap J referee comments and our 
   replies linked on the stochastic review webpage at:
      http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/sbwg/ (standard cheerleading login)
    - Stuart wondering if there is proof that coupling is stronger for 1 Hz
          lines. Robert seems ok about this.
    - Albert wants more definitive statement about 1 Hz coherence - Robert
      seems more ambiguous.
    - John points out error in CSD.

3) Comments on latest version of S4 Allegro-LLO paper.
- There are authorship issues that need to be sorted out concerning the 
   ALLEGRO authors.
- In the abstract, my preference is "90% confidence level upper 
   limit" -> "Bayseian 90% confidence level upper limit".
- In the abstract, my preference would be "1.5 \times 10^{-23} Hz^{-1/2} or 
   \Omega_{GW}(f) \le 1.02" -> ""1.5 \times 10^{-23} Hz^{-1/2} or 
   alternatively \Omega_{GW}(f) \le 1.02".
- Section I, line 1, "One of the sources" -> "One of the signals".
- Section II, two lines above Eq (2.4), missing tilde from LHS of inline 
   equation.
- Section II, last half paragraph or so, I think should be in the 
   introduction, along with a brief discussion of serendipitous astrophysical 
   sources.
- Section III, I'd explain that L1 has an entire paper devoted to it (with 
   the citation that is already there), and that just the most relevant 
   aspects are being recalled for the reader here.
- Section III, just after Eq. (3.2), "The response function is" -> "The 
   response function, $\tilde{R}(f)$, is". 
- Section III-B-2, paragraph 2, "The model consists in two double 
   poles" -> "The model consists of two double poles".
- Remove wierd line-break in Section III-B-3.
- I'm dubious about the need for Fig. 4.
- Section IV-B-4, something bizarre has happened to the sentence 
    defining "sliding power spectrum estimation".
- In section V-B, I don't know what the reader is supposed to take from 
    formulae like 1+1/(58\ times 9/11), but I'm guessing most will just be 
    confused. In my opinion, either give the formula explicitly and explain 
    it, or just give the final bias number and a reference.
- In section B-D you the selection of the 90% interval. Is this a standard 
    method of dealing with null and non-null results at the same time? If so, 
    do you have a reference? If not, why did you create this?
- In VI-A bullet points, 905 Hz is listed as a vetoed frequency, but no 
    explanation of why this veto is used follows - I think users will be 
    curious.
- In VI-B, second paragraph, I think that the second reference to Table II 
    should be to Table III.
- In VIII, who got the H1-L1 results you quote? If it's Vuk, are these 
    numbers not called into question by your discussion with him about how to 
    get proper results at these frequencies?

Related Email

Subject: Comments on P050020-04-Z
From: Warren G Anderson 
To: John Whelan 
CC: Martin McHugh , Warren Johnson 
Date: 2006-11-21 15:28

Hi,

I've gone through the paper fairly carefully now and here are my comments:

1) There are authorship issues that need to be sorted out concerning the 
   ALLEGRO authors.
2) In the abstract, my preference is "90% confidence level upper 
   limit" -> "Bayseian 90% confidence level upper limit".
3) In the abstract, my preference would be "1.5 \times 10^{-23} Hz^{-1/2} or 
   \Omega_{GW}(f) \le 1.02" -> ""1.5 \times 10^{-23} Hz^{-1/2} or 
   alternatively \Omega_{GW}(f) \le 1.02".
4) Section I, line 1, "One of the sources" -> "One of the signals".
5) Section II, two lines above Eq (2.4), missing tilde from LHS of inline 
   equation.
6) Section II, last half paragraph or so, I think should be in the 
   introduction, along with a brief discussion of serendipitous astrophysical 
   sources.
7) Section III, I'd explain that L1 has an entire paper devoted to it (with 
   the citation that is already there), and that just the most relevant 
   aspects are being recalled for the reader here.
8) Section III, just after Eq. (3.2), "The response function is" -> "The 
   response function, $\tilde{R}(f)$, is". 
9) Section III-B-2, paragraph 2, "The model consists in two double 
   poles" -> "The model consists of two double poles".
10) Remove wierd line-break in Section III-B-3.
11) I'm dubious about the need for Fig. 4.
12) Section IV-B-4, something bizarre has happened to the sentence 
    defining "sliding power spectrum estimation".
13) In section V-B, I don't know what the reader is supposed to take from 
    formulae like 1+1/(58\ times 9/11), but I'm guessing most will just be 
    confused. In my opinion, either give the formula explicitly and explain 
    it, or just give the final bias number and a reference.
14) In section B-D you the selection of the 90% interval. Is this a standard 
    method of dealing with null and non-null results at the same time? If so, 
    do you have a reference? If not, why did you create this?
15) In VI-A bullet points, 905 Hz is listed as a vetoed frequency, but no 
    explanation of why this veto is used follows - I think users will be 
    curious.
16) In VI-B, second paragraph, I think that the second reference to Table II 
    should be to Table III.
17) In VIII, who got the H1-L1 results you quote? If it's Vuk, are these 
    numbers not called into question by your discussion with him about how to 
    get proper results at these frequencies? 

I think the committee has some overall comments about the conclusion and more 
generally the motivation/target audience for this paper. We can take those up 
next week.

Warren

-- 
+================[ 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: 061114.html,v 1.2 2006/11/29 00:06:28 warren Exp $