LSC/VIRGO Stochastic Analysis Review

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:
4) AOB


Minutes

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 20061114-minutes.txt - minutes from the Nov 14 Stochastic Review telecon.
|
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (warren@gravity.phys.uwm.edu)
|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
- Stuart wondering if there is proof that coupling is stronger for 1 Hz
- Albert wants more definitive statement about 1 Hz coherence - Robert
seems more ambiguous.
- John points out error in CSD.

- 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     |
+==========================================================+

$Id: 061114.html,v 1.2 2006/11/29 00:06:28 warren Exp$