LSC/VIRGO Stochastic Analysis Review


Review Home
StochReview List/Archive
Stochastic ilog
Stochastic list/Archive


Conferences 2007
Edit these pages


Status of Reviews

Agenda and Minutes, 10 April 2007

Agenda: Tues, 10 April 2007

There is no update from my end on the FSR result - I am still waiting on 
clarifications from the Rochester group. Nelson will be leading the code 
review, which the stochastic group has asked to have go ahead. 

In the mean time, it is time to review talks for the upcoming APS meeting. The 
executive committee meeting for approval of talks is on Thursday. Bernard 
Whiting is giving the only talk on behalf of the stochastic group. I asked to 
get it today so we could review it tomorrow. Hopefully, it will be 
distributed before our meeting time tomorrow. If so, I would like to have a 
telecon to review it and provide feedback.


| 20070327-minutes.txt - minutes from the April 10 Stochastic Review telecon.
|  Author        : Warren G. Anderson (
|  Last Modified : Tue Apr 10 02:00 PM 2007 M

Attending: Warren, Nelson, Stuart, Robert, Harry

- 1 Nelson - title is misleading, indicates that it might be more about data
  quality.Needs a DCC number.
- 2 Nelson - too much info - do we need the metric? Maybe put on two slides.
  Spell out supernova.
- 4 Marking the band where requirements are met invites comparison to number on
  slide 2 and might be unneccesary. Maybe this slide would be better at the end?
- 6 Move y-axis labels off graph. 
- 7 first two sub-bullets "Hanford 4km (H1) - Livingston (L1)". Maybe spread
  this over two slides too.
- 8 "first sky-map" seems to imply that this is a map of actual sky data
  rather than noise - maybe upper limit in title?  "flat" rather than
  "frequency-independent"? Be ready for questions about significance of red dot.
- 9 If the blue solid and dashed lines are supposed to indicate the bands in
  which the upper limits were obtained, they are wrong (deal breaker). If they
  are just
  pointing at the vertical cyan strip, then maybe Use thin arrows rather than
  thick lines to avoid ambiguity. Maybe two slides, one on other results and
  one on LIGO results. Maybe have some scheme to separate the theoretical and
  experimental results? What are light blue lines? If they correspond to LIGO
  results, why do they span all frequency bands. Y axis label is Log(W0)
  rather than Log(Omega_0). Should use the same ranges of Omega for initial and
  advanced LIGO predictions as in slide 13 to indicate uncertainty in bounds
  we will place (deal breaker).
- 10 S5 along with intermediate (actually enhanced) LIGO for better
  sensitivity in current band. 
- 11-13 Can you get original pdf or eps graphics from stoch group so that
  graphs are better quality?

Code Review:

- Warren and Harry will help.
$Id: 070410.html,v 1.1 2007/06/25 21:58:15 warren Exp $