LSC/VIRGO Stochastic Analysis Review

Agenda: Tues, 27 March 2007

I'd like to have a stochastic review telecon tomorrow at 13:00 Pacific to 
review where we are, especially with respect to the discussions Stuart, 
Robert, and I, along with members of the calibration review committee, had 
with the Rochester group about the S4 FSR result. In particular, I'd like to 
go over:

- where we are on timing
- where we are on calibration
- where we are on coherence
- concrete things that should be done during/just after S5 to make an S5 FSR 
result more bullet-proof.

In regard to the last item, Robert made a concrete suggestion of how to deal 
with possible coherence. I think it would be useful to bring that forward for 
group discussion.
  

Minutes

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 20070327-minutes.txt - minutes from the Mar 27 Stochastic Review telecon.
|
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (warren@gravity.phys.uwm.edu)
|
|  Last Modified : Tue Mar 27 03:00 PM 2007 M
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attending: Warren, Robert, Harry, Nelson

- where we are on timing
  - incoherent statistic should be good
  - Still don't understand why incoherent is not sqrt(6000) worse than
    coherent. Need to see integrals.
  - timing hardware switched out between S4 and S5 - is S5 analysis relevant?
  - Rochester group will be looking at acoutsic lines to try to get handle on
    timing in S4.
- where we are on calibration
  - Calibration review still at least a month away.
- where we are on coherence
  - Rochester group will estimate possible size of affect from Robert's
    broad-band coherences.
- concrete things that should be done during/just after S5 to make an S5 
  FSR result more bullet-proof.
  - We need to be congnizant of these as we think of them.

- In regard to the third item, Robert made a concrete suggestion of how to
  deal with possible coherence:
  - basic idea, the higher a stochastic background is, the less likely it is
    to be exactly canceled by antcoherence. Should be able to assign a
    probability distribution to this and use that to set the 95% confidence.
  - Nelson is uncomfortable with this - amounts to admiting you have no handle
    on instrumental correlations.

$Id: 070327.html,v 1.1 2007/06/25 21:58:15 warren Exp $