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, 09 Dec 2010

Agenda: Thurs, 09 Dec 2010

- Discussion of S5/VSR1 LIGO/Virgo paper 
  

Minutes

Minutes of Dec 09, 2010 Stochastic Review Telecon

Attending: Warren, Gregg, Robert

Page 6
- After equation (15), is alignment really the only relevant factor in
  calibration for this paper.
- Should make a connection between epsilons and percentages in table I.
- Where do we find the justification for 0.1 cut for Delta sigma (as opposed
  to other values).

Page 7
- It seems strange to quote errors at 1kHz in Table I and results at 900 Hz at
  Table II. Can we give error values at 900Hz?
- Might state explicitly that C=0.96 for equation (22) - it's a bit vague.
- First paragraph of section III is confusing.
- First paragraph of subsection A is a bit jargony, especially ("whole of
  S5").
- Need to specify band in table II for the results to make sense. Omega at any
  single frequency = 0 since the bandwidth is infinitesimal.

Page 8
- Figure 4 is hard to read, worse in gray scale.
- After Equation 23, N_neutrinos can't be 1.4, maybe (N_neutrino - 3) < 1.4.
- Maybe instead of giving all the details of why we are not informative to BBN
  and CMB for cosmological backgrounds, we should simply state that we don't
  improve on thes indirect upper limits, but that this is the best direct limit
  and that astriphysical backgrounds make the measurement intersting in any
  case.
- Is 600-1000 Hz "the band of interest" because it is the band this analysis
  was done in. If not, what band was it done in? If so, why are results
  obtained by integrating from 600-1000 Hz quoted as being for 900Hz?

IV.
- A simple statement that hardware injections were not available might be
  better.
- Timing accuracy section too jargony - will all readers understand how a
  "simple pole" models differential response?

Page 9
- Should remind reader why H2 is not used in the analysis (or maybe just "as
  discussed earlier in this paper").
- Robert would like more more detail on checking GPS accuracy (and citation of
  relevant documents if possible). For instance, how were GPS clocks compared?
- Why no V1 in table 3? Surely those are the most interesting values!
- If the quoted sigma is an overestimate, then why should we be reassured that
  the values are all within 2 sigma (in fact, they seem to be within 1 sigma).
  Can you calculate the bias factor and correct the sigmas to show that the
  values obtained are still OK?

Page 10
- Is Figure 5 is for H1L1 again, or all the pairs?
- Are the red points supposed to represent a corrected sigma? If so, why are
  the point estimates changed - are they also incorrect because of the large
  signal bias?
$Id: 20101209.html,v 1.2 2010/12/09 21:35:14 warren Exp $