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, 18 Nov 2010

Agenda: Thurs, 18 Nov 2010

- Discussion of S5/VSR1 LIGO/Virgo paper 
  

Minutes

Minutes of Nov 18, 2010 Stochastic Review Telecon

Attending: Nelson, Warren, Robert

- Robert will look at data quality/selection
    - Warren will ask Fabio

- BOE calculaton - Warren

- Nelson's general comments:
    - Nelson thinks it's light on content
    - too much jargon

- Title:
    - Robert doesn't think "Setting" should be there, makes it sound like a
      methods paper.
    - Put frequency into the title.

- Abstract/Introduction
    - Frequency should be highlighted. 
    - Need to highlight that this is the first analysis using both LIGO and
      Virgo.
    - Motivation for why high frequency is analyzed.
    - Note that upper limit is concordant with expectations given sensitivity.

- Introduction
    - Clean up descriptions of interferometers.
    - No references for interferometers.
    - Explain why GEO is not used.
    - List length of GEO as with others.
    - More on geometry and why 900 Hz.
    - Big deal that this is first LIGO-GEO stochastic
    - It is not impossible in principle to distinguish a stochastic signal
      from stochastic noise - it depends on the amplitude of the signal and
      how well modeled the noise is. Qualify this statement.
    - replace "Michelson interferometer" with "interferometric gravitational
      wave detector".
    - explain why GEO is not included in this paper. 
    - if the band is 600 Hz to 1000 Hz, why is this being called the Omega_GW
      at 900 Hz.
    - examples of jargon is "H1", "BBN" etc

- Analysis Method (until the end of page 2)
    - "noise and signal are both *assumed* to be stochastic".
    - reference to H1-H2 paper is premature - maybe Nick's paper instead.
    - reword "can assume that the noise will not be correlated".
    - "white in strain" should be "white in strain amplitude"
    - "ORF" is jargon and needs to be referenced.
    - need to remind reader that "HV" is both "H1-V1" and "H2-V1"
    - need to be more explicit in discussing removal of data - maybe summarize
      the data quality cuts information from S5 isotropic. Also, should
      explain data quality cuts from Virgo, which have not been discussed in
      stochastic papers before.
    - timing accuracy should maybe be discussed closer to here since they are
      "data quality" discussions.
    - is there some way to see that the LV ORF decays more slowly at high
      frequencies than the H1-L1 ORF? It would be nice to explain that.
    - if LV is more sensitive above 200Hz, why not start the analysis there?
    - explain why you are choosing the f^3 spectrum.

$Id: 20101118.html,v 1.1 2010/12/09 00:45:40 warren Exp $