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, 23 January 2007

Agenda: Tues, 23 January 2007

The only item on the agenda this time is the latest version of the Allegro 
paper, which is posted at: 

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

The minutes indicate that had finished at least part of Section IV.
  

Minutes

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 20070123-minutes.txt - minutes from the Jan 23 Stochastic Review telecon.
|
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (warren@gravity.phys.uwm.edu)
|
|  Last Modified : Tue Jan 23 04:00 PM 2007 C
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attending: Warren, Robert, Martin, Nelson, Harry

Further Comments on new Allegro paper draft:

Section V
    Subsection VA
    - mention the amount ot data discarded by the  20% stationarity cut.
    - mention that any reasonable cut gives same result.
    Subsection C
    - Windowing done as a "best practice".
    Subsection E
    - spaces before references at end of subsection. Also make period after
      reference in all cases.
Section VI
    Subsection A
    - maybe make fig 5 normalized
    - show fig 4 for whole data set as well as the playground
    Subsection B
    - first column on tables II and III in time in seconds.
Section VII
    Subsection A
    - if there is a reason that 7.3 is used for software and 7.4 for
      hardware, it should be explained in the paper.
    Subsection C
    - estimated errorbar 47 should be estimated error of 47.
Section VIII
- Fig 7 - remove A-null and B-null from the legend on the rhs graph.
Section X
- mention that confirmation of H1-H2 finding is now available.
References
- should there be names associated with reference 34.
- For reference 44, mention the associated conference proceedings
  contribution.

Related Email

Subject: Review comments on latest version of Allegro Stochastic paper
From: Warren G Anderson 
To: John T Whelan 
CC: Martin McHugh , 
    Warren Johnson ,
    Sukanta Bose ,
    stochreview@gravity.phys.uwm.edu
Date: 2007-01-23 15:47

Hi All,

The review committee has made the attached comments on the latest posted 
version of the A1-L1 stochastic paper. Some committee members may be sending 
some minor grammatical comments separately. The review committee feels that 
once a new draft that takes these comments into consideration is ready, that 
it will be ready for general LSC review (i.e. we do not feel we need to 
review the next draft as well). Congratulations on a job well done.

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     |
+==========================================================+
Attachment
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allegro_final_review.txt - Final comments on A1-L1 paper from stochastic
|                            review committee.
|
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (warren@gravity.phys.uwm.edu)
|
|  Last Modified : Tue Jan 23 04:00 PM 2007 C
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intro
- LLO is used for both IFo and for observatory facility - please
  differentiate.
- list of possible sources should be quoted as examples so as not to give an
  impression of comprehensiveness.
- Fig 1 with two spectra for Omega(f) still confusing.

Section II
- Why is there an assymetry between x-arm and y-arm in Fig 2?
- Second sentence below Fig. 2 runs on - split at comma?
- Mention that Eq.s 2.1 - 2.3 are for long wavelength limit.
- "A1-L1" is undefined abbreviation.
- Suggested replacement for second last sentence of section:
  "For certain ranges of these three parameters the Livingston-Allegro
   detector pair offers the best constraints on theory that can be inferred
   from any current observation."
- Last sentence doesn't need to be in parenthesis.


Section III
- paragraph 2 - "round trip" not really appropriate for Fabry-Perot - work in
  wording about finesse of cavity.
- paragraph 3 - environmental forces need not be "random".
-             - "indistinguishable" not really true - "mimic" would be better.
- paragraph 4 - error signal q(t) "recorded", not "measured".
- III-B-1 - second paragraph seems to begin a bit informally - leave out "to
  check".
- Fig 3 - y-axis in 1/root Hz needs effective bandwidth to make sense.
- Is it worth explaining differences between curves for different
  ortientations in the caption of Fig 3?
- better to use j to label samples in last sentence of III.A as is done
  elsewhere in paper.

Section IV
- In eq.s 4.1 and 4.2 and surrounding text, it is probably better to reserve i
  for the sqrt of -1. Capital letters have been used to label detectors
  in the past.
- Table I - explain why N63W is used instead of N62W.
- second column page 6 - what is the "dimensional factor"?
- justify choices of numbers quoted on page 7, eg why df=0.25Hz.
  for stationarity cut is 20%.

Section V
    Subsection VA
    - mention the amount ot data discarded by the  20% stationarity cut.
    - mention that any reasonable cut gives same result.
    Subsection C
    - Windowing done as a "best practice".
    Subsection E
    - spaces before references at end of subsection. Also make period after
      reference in all cases.

Section VI
    Subsection A
    - maybe make fig 5 normalized
    - show fig 4 for whole data set as well as the playground
    Subsection B
    - first column on tables II and III in time in seconds.

Section VII
    Subsection A
    - if there is a reason that 7.3 is used for software and 7.4 for
      hardware, it should be explained in the paper.
    Subsection C
    - estimated errorbar 47 should be estimated error of 47.

Section VIII
- Fig 7 - remove A-null and B-null from the legend on the rhs graph.

Section X
- mention that confirmation of H1-H2 finding is now available.

References
- should there be names associated with reference 34.
- For reference 44, mention the associated conference proceedings
  contribution.
$Id: 070123.html,v 1.3 2007/02/13 22:50:24 warren Exp $