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, 19 June 2007

Agenda: Tues, 19 June 2007

On our plate for tomorrow is the review of the stochastic talks and posters
for Amaldi.

So far, there have been a talk and a poster made available. I've linked the
both to the review web page at:

Username is lsc, password is the standard cheering password.

John  Whelan will be giving a poster on the LLO-Allegro paper. He has asked
for an extension, and since that work has been so well reviewed, I thought it
would be ok to let him have more time. I believe Nick Fotopoulos wanted to
give a talk on H1-H2 correlation removal, which has the potential to be
somewhat more contentious, but I've heard nothing from him about his talk.


Attending: Stuart, Nelson, Harry, Warren, Robert

Bernard Whiting's Poster
- no data has been analyzed, title data->network. GEO should be mentioned.

- fewer graphs and more text might be better - motivation and conclusions.
  Nelson thinks a good case should make a case for an extra interferometer
  giving sqrt N improvement.

- On Fig.s, LLO-Virgo and LHO-Virgo curves indistinguishable..

- Stating approx. Freq band would be helpful.

- Better to have non-abbreviated IFO names in Fig. Captions.

- Should probably be V1 instead of V2.

- Fig. 2 curves are illegible. Might be a good one to delete.

- Where does data for Fig.s 1-3 come from? Design? S5 levels?

- For Fig. 4: What is data (design)? Upper limit on what? What are units of
  upper limit? What is observation time? Has this been presented before?
  Curves that are from real data should be removed.

- Nelson thinks that it is difficult to understand what Fig. 5 means without
  an equation. What does it mean to be an "integrand" for three instruments.

- Caption of Fig 6 talks about improvements to network by including Virgo, but
  network without Virgo (H-L-G) is not compared to HLGV.

- Astrophysical typo.

- Reference for magnetars, some description of why they are being focussed on.
  Need some motivational statements like "Virgo will help most with sources at
  high frequencies - are there any?"

- Statement that Magnetars are exotic?

- Looks to us like GEO might be getting short-shrift.

- Some statement that this is exploratory needed.

Bottom line is that Fig. 4 must be removed if it is using real data or
significantly altered if it is not, and GEO should be treated more fairly.

Since we ran out of time, we will have another session tomorrow, same time.
$Id: 070619.html,v 1.1 2007/09/12 01:13:39 warren Exp $