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, 28 November 2006

Agenda: Tues, 28 November 2006

The only item on the agenda is to review the three presentations at December 
meetings that have new results:

1) Stochastic slides for Jay Marx's LIGO overview talk at the Texas Symposium
2) Stefan's radiometer poster for the Texas Symposium
3) John's L1-A1 slides for GWDAW

All three are linked on the review webpage at:

http://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/sbwg/review/projects.html

We need to have a recommendation made on results presented no later than Dec. 
6. 
  

Minutes

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 20061114-minutes.txt - minutes from the Nov 28 Stochastic Review telecon.
|
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (warren@gravity.phys.uwm.edu)
|
|  Last Modified : Sun Nov 19 11:00 PM 2006 M
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attending: Warren, Nelson, Robert, Martin, Harry

Jay's slides:
- Nelson finds slides too busy - need a more general/introductory talk for
  this audience? 
- Should use consistent notation for quantities - i.e. S_GW vs H_0, Omega_GW vs
  Omega_0. H_0 should be reserved for Hubble constant.
Slide 1
- Estimates should be more clearly separated from actual values. Could split
  into two, or use solid for real and dashed for projected.
- Robert wonders do we need SRD curves?
- Harry finds order of sub-bullets for last bullet odd.
Slide 2
- Robert suggest that graphs should be in opposite order. 
- Is point spread function is necessary?
- What is message to be taken away?
- Null result should be clearly stated.
- Words prelimary results MUST appear.
- Different notation for power than H_0
- Should units be quoted as strain squared / Hz?
Slide 3
- Does color scheme convey info?
- "Rotation" and "modulation" suggest dynamic changes, new wording?
- Replace two injection bullets with general statement about successful
  recovery?
- Maybe 100x better than previous results without pointing at
  EXPLORER-NAUTILUS?
- Why use h^2{_100} when H_100 is given on the first slide?
- capitalization in I.e.

Necessary changes:
- Should use consistent notation for quanities - i.e.  H_0 should be reserved for Hubble constant.
- On slide 1,  Estimates should be more clearly separated from actual values.
  Could split into two, or use solid for real and dashed for projected.
- On slide 2, null result should be clearly stated.
- On slide 2, words prelimary results MUST appear.

Stefan Ballmer
- Should use consistent notation for quanities - i.e. S_GW vs H_0, Omega_GW vs
  Omega_0. H_0 should be reserved for Hubble constant.
- Introductory sentence is hard to parse.
- Is info on IFO at bottom necessary?
- Use peak-to-peak instead of pkk.

Allegro
General: You have enough room that you can use fewer abbreviations (inj,
theor) in text.
Slide 1
- Title slide is messy.
- Should it follow the standard ligo style?
- Can we lose the header?
- Allegro collaboration?
- Kill boxes around links?
Slide 3
- Does text color encode info?
Slide 6
- Cuts not discussed yet so "after cuts" is meaningless - discuss cuts here.
Slide 7
- Two busy with all the grid lines.
- Two dashed blue lines in plot vs one in text.
Slide 9
- Could be a bit more explicit about what's being done on this slide. 
- Abbreviation PG undefined.
- Committee had trouble understanding this slide
Slide 10
- What happened to Omega_R=1.9? Not recovered?
Slide 11
- Expand explanation - where is "first round"? Second bullet hard to parse.
Slide 12
- hard to see symbols. 
- maybe have both HW injection figures on same page?
Slide 13
- mention that dashed line is calibration uncertainty?
- Clean up legend?
Slide 14
- Make notation consistent with other talks.
Slide 16
- Is this slide needed?
Slide 17 
- Should be more clearly stated as preliminary result
- Might mention that Nautilus-Explorer result is previous best.
Slide 18
- "Rotation" and "modulation" suggest dynamic changes, do we need new wording?
- capitalization in I.e.

Requirements:
General
- Make notation consistent with other talks.
Slide 6
- Cuts not discussed yet so "after cuts" is meaningless - discuss cuts here.
Slide 7
- Two dashed blue lines in plot vs one in text.
Slide 17 
- Should be more clearly stated as preliminary result.

Related Email

Subject: Suggestions and requirements for Jay's slides
From: Warren G Anderson 
To: Vuk Mandic 
CC: Jay Marx , stochreview@gravity.phys.uwm.edu
Date: Today 17:14:38

 Hi Vuk,

The stochastic review committee has identified the following issues which 
should be addressed before we can recommend to the Executive Committee that 
these slides be presented:

1) The notation used for various quantities should be made consistent - e.g. 
   S_GW on slide 3 vs H_0 on slide 2, Omega_GW on slide 3 vs Omega_0 on slide 
   3. H_0 should probably be reserved for the Hubble constant.
2) On slide 1, it should be made clearer which curves correspond to projected 
   sensitivities and which are from actual measurements.
3) On slide 2, it should be clearly stated that the bottom figure represents a 
   real null result and that the upper figure represents a simulated result.
4) On slide 2, it must be clearly stated that the results in the bottom figure
   are preliminary.

We also have the following suggestions and comments that you might want to 
consider:

General Comments:
- The slides are too busy. 
- You probably need a more general/introductory talk for this audience.
Slide 1
- Do we really need SRD curves anymore?
- The order of sub-bullets for last bullet seems a bit odd - e.g. quote band 
  before result.
Slide 2
- Perhaps graphs should be in opposite order so that the real result is seen 
  first?
- Is the point spread function figure necessary?
- What is message to be taken away from this slide - it's not stated clearly?
- To make it clearer that the bottom graph is quoted in strain power, should 
  the units be quoted as strain squared / Hz?
Slide 3
- The color scheme seems distracting - does it serve a purpose?
- "Rotation" and "modulation" suggest dynamic changes during the run, instead 
  of three static configurations - it might help to reword this.
- This audience probably doesn't need so much information about injections - 
  maybe replace the two injection bullets with a general statement that \ 
  hardware and software injections were made and successful recovered.
- Maybe point out that our new result is 100x better than previous results 
  without pointing at EXPLORER-NAUTILUS?
- Remove capitalization in I.e.

Please feel free to contact me if you want clarification or discussion of any 
of these points.

Cheers,
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     |
+==========================================================+

Subject: Review committee comments on your poster From: Warren G Anderson To: Stefan Ballmer CC: stochreview@gravity.phys.uwm.edu Date: Today 17:28:25 Hi Stefan, The review committee has met and would like the following change made to your poster before we recommend to the Executive Committee that it be presented: Please consult with Vuk and John come up with a notation that is consistent between the various presentations. In particular, the review committee believes that since H_0 has a long history of being used to denote the Hubble constant that it should not be used in stochastic papers to denote the strain power. Some other recommendations or comments you might want to consider (but are not required for our recommendation): - The "Introduction" is hard to parse - could you reword it so it is clearer? - The IFO info in the blue box at the bottom seems perhaps unnecessary. - We would prefer you stop using the abbreviation pkk and write explicitly "peak-to-peak". If you need any clarification or discussion of these points, please feel free to contact me. Cheers, 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 | +==========================================================+
Subject: Review committee comments on your GWDAW talk From: Warren G Anderson To: John Whelan CC: stochreview@gravity.phys.uwm.edu Date: Today 17:43:04 Hi John, The review committee has met and would like the following change made to your talk before we recommend to the Executive Committee that it be presented: 1) Please consult with Vuk and Stefan and come up with a notation that is consistent between the various presentations - e.g. S_GW vs H_0, Omega_GW vs Omega_0, etc. 2) On slide 6, discuss cuts before talking about amount of data "after cuts". 3) On slide 7, there are two dashed blue lines in plot vs one in text - make this consistent. 4) On slide 17 the result needs to be clearly presented as a *preliminary* result. Some other recommendations or comments you might want to consider (but are not required for our recommendation): General: - You have enough room that you can use fewer abbreviations (e.g. inj, theor, fcn) in text. - Should you be following the standard LIGO style? - Can we lose the header, which seems to clutter the slides? Slide 1 - Title slide is cluttered. - Should this talk also be on behalf of the Allegro collaboration? - Can you kill the boxes around links? Slide 3 - Does text color encode info? If so, that info is not being conveyed to us. If not, colors are distracting. Slide 7 - Graph is too busy with all the grid lines. Slide 9 - Could be a bit more explicit (wordier) about what's being done on this slide. - Abbreviation PG undefined. - Committee had trouble understanding this slide. Slide 10 - What happened to Omega_R=1.9? Not recovered? If so, might want to state that explicitly. Slide 11 - Expand explanation - where is "first round"? Committee found second bullet hard to parse. Slide 12 - hard to see symbols on figure. - maybe have both HW injection figures on same page? Slide 13 - mention that dashed line is calibration uncertainty? - Clean up legend? Slide 16 - What is the purpose of slide at this point - is it needed? Slide 17 - Might mention that Nautilus-Explorer result is previous best. Slide 18 - "Rotation" and "modulation" suggest dynamic changes, do we need new wording? - fix capitalization in I.e. If you need any clarification or discussion of these points, please feel free to contact me. Cheers, 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: 061128.html,v 1.1 2006/11/29 00:14:18 warren Exp $