LIGO- G030081-00-Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Hardware Burst Injections in Pre-S2  S2 Alan Weinstein, Caltech Laura Cadonati, MIT Shourov Chatterjee,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Spring LSC 2001 LIGO-G W E2 Amplitude Calibration of the Hanford Recombined 2km IFO Michael Landry, LIGO Hanford Observatory Luca Matone, Benoit.
Advertisements

LIGO-G Z Update on the Analysis of S2 Burst Hardware Injections L. Cadonati (MIT), A. Weinstein (CIT) for the Burst group Hannover LSC meeting,
GWDAW-8 (December 17-20, 2003, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) Search for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data Masaki Ando Department of Physics, University.
Burst detection efficiency  In order to interpret our observed detection rate (upper limit) we need to know our efficiency for detection by the IFO and.
LIGO- G R AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Simulation of Burst Waveforms and Burst Event Triggers Alan Weinstein Caltech Burst UL WG LSC meeting, 8/13/01.
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Use of detector calibration info in the burst group
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Hardware Burst Injections in E9  S2 Alan Weinstein, Caltech Laura Cadonati, MIT Shourov Chatterjee, MIT.
G R AJW, Caltech, LSC Meeting, 3/20/02 Progress on Burst Simulation  t-f character of burst waveforms  Burst waveforms  Calibration  E7 data.
LSC Meeting, 17 March 2004 Shawhan, Marka, et al.LIGO-G E Summary of E10 / S3 Hardware Signal Injections Peter Shawhan, Szabolcs Márka, Bruce.
LIGO-G Z Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates Laura Cadonati Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
G Z April 2007 APS Meeting - DAP GGR Gravitational Wave AstronomyKeith Thorne Coincidence-based LIGO GW Burst Searches and Astrophysical Interpretation.
Waveburst DSO: current state, testing on S2 hardware burst injections Sergei Klimenko Igor Yakushin LSC meeting, March 2003 LIGO-G Z.
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Use of detector calibration info in the burst group
Observing the Bursting Universe with LIGO: Status and Prospects Erik Katsavounidis LSC Burst Working Group 8 th GWDAW - UWM Dec 17-20, 2003.
LIGO- G Z 03/23/2005LSC Meeting March BlockNormal Near-Online S4 Burst Analysis Keith Thorne Penn State University Relativity Group (Shantanu.
LIGO-G Z LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Upper Limits on the Rate of Gravitational Wave Bursts from the First LIGO Science Run Edward Daw Louisiana.
LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.
LIGO-G M GWDAW, December LIGO Burst Search Analysis Laura Cadonati, Erik Katsavounidis LIGO-MIT.
Data Quality Vetoes in LIGO S5 Searches for Gravitational Wave Transients Laura Cadonati (MIT) For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration LIGO-G Z.
S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), G.Mitselmakher (UF),
Searching for Gravitational Waves with LIGO Andrés C. Rodríguez Louisiana State University on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration SACNAS
LIGO-G Z April 2006 APS meeting Igor Yakushin (LLO, Caltech) Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in LIGO’s S5 run Igor Yakushin (LLO, Caltech)
Upper Limits from LIGO and TAMA on Gravitational-Wave Bursts on Gravitational-Wave Bursts Patrick Sutton (LIGO laboratory, Caltech), Masaki Ando (Department.
S.Klimenko, August 2005, LSC, G Z Constraint likelihood analysis with a network of GW detectors S.Klimenko University of Florida, in collaboration.
S.Klimenko, July 14, 2007, Amaldi7,Sydney, G Z Detection and reconstruction of burst signals with networks of gravitational wave detectors S.Klimenko,
LIGO-G D Status of Stochastic Search with LIGO Vuk Mandic on behalf of LIGO Scientific Collaboration Caltech GWDAW-10, 12/15/05.
LIGO- G D Burst Search Report Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting LIGO1 Plenary Session 18 August 2003 Hannover.
LSC Meeting, 19 March 2003 Shawhan, Leonor, MarkaLIGO-G D Introduction to Hardware Signal Injections Peter Shawhan, Isabel Leonor, Szabi Márka.
Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
1 Laura Cadonati, MIT For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS meeting Tampa, FL April 16, 2005 LIGO Hanford ObservatoryLIGO Livingston Observatory New.
LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.
S.Klimenko, G Z, December 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida for.
S.Klimenko, LSC, August 2004, G Z BurstMon S.Klimenko, A.Sazonov University of Florida l motivation & documentation l description & results l.
S.Klimenko, G Z, March 20, 2006, LSC meeting First results from the likelihood pipeline S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), A.Mercer (UF),G.Mitselmakher.
LIGO-G Z Confidence Test for Waveform Consistency of LIGO Burst Candidate Events Laura Cadonati LIGO Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
S.Klimenko, March 2003, LSC Burst Analysis in Wavelet Domain for multiple interferometers LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko University of Florida l Analysis.
LIGO-G Z GWDAW9 December 17, Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in LIGO Science Run 2 Data John G. Zweizig LIGO / Caltech for the LIGO.
LIGO-G All-Sky Burst Search in the First Year of the LSC S5 Run Laura Cadonati, UMass Amherst For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration GWDAW Meeting,
Results From the Low Threshold, Early S5, All-Sky Burst Search Laura Cadonati for the Burst Group LSC MIT November 5, 2006 G Z.
Peter Shawhan The University of Maryland & The LIGO Scientific Collaboration Penn State CGWP Seminar March 27, 2007 LIGO-G Z Reaching for Gravitational.
LIGO-G Z Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 First look at Injection of Burst Waveforms prior to S1 Alan Weinstein Caltech Burst UL WG LSC meeting, 8/21/02.
LIGO-G Z r statistics for time-domain cross correlation on burst candidate events Laura Cadonati LIGO-MIT LSC collaboration meeting, LLO march.
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 A Coherence Function Statistic to Identify Coincident Bursts Surjeet Rajendran, Caltech SURF Alan Weinstein,
LSC meeting – Mar05 Livingston, LA A. Di Credico Syracuse University Glitch investigations with kleineWelle Reporting on work done by several people: L.
LIGO-G Z TFClusters Tuning for the LIGO-TAMA Search Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech.
S.Klimenko, LSC, Marcht 2005, G Z BurstMon diagnostic of detector noise during S4 run S.Klimenko University of Florida l burstMon FOMs l S4 run.
LIGO-G D S2 Glitch Investigation Report Laura Cadonati (MIT) on behalf of the Glitch Investigation Team LSC meeting, August 2003, Hannover.
LIGO-G Z 23 October 2002LIGO Laboratory NSF Review1 Searching for Gravitational Wave Bursts: An Overview Sam Finn, Erik Katsavounidis and Peter.
Igor Yakushin, December 2004, GWDAW-9 LIGO-G Z Status of the untriggered burst search in S3 LIGO data Igor Yakushin (LIGO Livingston Observatory)
LIGO-G Z Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.
LIGO-G D Glitch Investigation Update Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Investigation Group LSC meeting, Hanford November 12, 2003.
LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.
The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO
Igor Yakushin, LIGO Livingston Observatory
r-statistic performance in S2
LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting
WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans
Maria Principe University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy
Stochastic background search using LIGO Livingston and ALLEGRO
S2 Inspiral Hardware Injections
S2/S3 Glitch Investigation Update
WaveBurst upgrade for S3 analysis
Line tracking methods used in LineMon
First look at Injection of Burst Waveforms prior to S1
Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates
A Waveform Consistency Test for Binary Inspirals using LIGO data
Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis
Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data
Presentation transcript:

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 Hardware Burst Injections in Pre-S2  S2 Alan Weinstein, Caltech Laura Cadonati, MIT Shourov Chatterjee, MIT And WaveBurst results from Sergei Klimenko, UFla Igor Yakushin, LIGO-LLO LSC meeting, 3/18/03

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project2 Goals of the Burst Injections  test our understanding of the entire signal chain from »GDS excitation point  »displacements of test masses  »data logged in LSC-AS_Q and related DM and common mode channels  »entire burst search analysis chain.  In particular, we need a quantitative comparison between signals injected into the IFO and signals injected into the datastream in software (in LDAS), to validate the efficiency calculation.  Verify that we detect HW injected signals with SNR as expected »Detection confidence  Test our understanding of the dependence on source direction and polarization.

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project3 Injecting signals The awg, multiawgstream and SIStr facilities developed by I. Leonor, P. Shawhan, D. Sigg are used to inject series of signals into the LSC-ETMX_EXC, and LSC-ETMY_EXC, or DARM_CTRL_EXC channels of the three interferometers. The injections during S1, E9 and S2 were/are coordinated by M. Landry, P. Shawhan, S. Marka Many thanks to all the developers for this immensely important and useful facility!

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project4 Original (ambitious) program: Burst_z and Burst_ang Burst_z scan, into DARM or ETMX-ETMY:  inject sine-Gaussians into all 6 end test masses, with durations of ~ 1 second, spaced 40 seconds apart.  Scan 8 logarithmically-spaced central frequencies from Hz.  Scan ~6 amplitudes from 1 to 100 times the nominal calibrated strain sensitivity at that central frequency.  These 48 bursts should thus take 32 minutes. Burst_ang scan, exciting both DARM and CARM, with IFO-IFO delays:  Choose one central frequency and relatively large amplitude, and scan over 100 source directions and polarizations (5 in cos , 5 in , 4 in  ; all with respect to the mean of the LHO/LLO zenith and orientation). This should take 67 minutes.

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project5 Waveforms, amplitudes  Short, narrow-bandwidth signals (sine-Gaussians) provide the most direct and useful interpretation of IFO and data analysis responses. We envision a "swept-sine calibration" of sine-Gaussians of varying frequency, spanning the LIGO band of interest.  Signal amplitudes should span the range from "barely detectable" to "large, but not so large as to excite a non-linear response". The IFO strain sensitivity varies over the frequency range of interest, so the amplitudes should vary as well.  Signals are injected using the GDS excitation engine, which accepts Hz time series in units of counts to the coil driver. The frequency dependence of the test mass response must be taken into account.  Each sine-Gaussian has Q ~ 9; total duration ~ Q/f 0 Frequency f 0 (Hz) Duration (msec) Time from segment start t 0 (sec)

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project6 Ad-hoc signals: (Sine)-Gaussians These have no astrophysical significance; But are well-defined in terms of waveform, duration, bandwidth, amplitude SG 554, Q = 9

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project7 Schedule of Signal Injections During the S2 Run Feb 14 2:48 CST, 0:48 PST # Feb 18 23:00 CST, 21:00 PST Feb 23 16:00 CST, 14:00 PST Feb 25 18:00 CST, 16:00 PST * Mar 2 14:00 CST, 12:00 PST Mar 3 12:00 CST, 10:00 PST Mar 7 2:00 CST, 0:00 PST Mar 12 20:00 CST, 18:00 PST Mar 15 24:00 CST, 22:00 PST * Mar 19 23:00 CST, 21:00 PST Mar 23 3:00 CST, 1:00 PST Mar 25 22:00 CST, 20:00 PST Mar 28 20:00 CST, 18:00 PST * Apr 2 10:00 CST, 8:00 PST Apr 5 4:00 CST, 2:00 PST Apr 9 24:00 CST, 22:00 PST * Apr 11 22:00 CDT, 20:00 PDT * inserted during the run to make up for lost opportunities (sometimes the interferometers were just out of lock and injection was pointless or partial) # The injection time was determined just before the injection S, Marka, P. Shawhan, I. Leonor

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project8 Actually done and analyzed (so far): DATEETMx-ETMyETMxETMy Feb 13 (pre-S2) 13 (H1,L1)8 (H1,L1) Feb (H1,L1) Feb (H1,H2,L1) Mar 2--3 (H1) Mar 7--3 (H1,L1) Mar (H1,L1) Mar (H2) Groups of 8 SG’s, varying amplitudes. Intra-run injections subject to IFO availability.

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project9 Signal amplitudes The waveform files have a peak amplitude (at 0.5 secs) of 1. You can read off the ETMx and ETMy signals, peak amplitude in counts. So: |ETMx-ETMy| (in counts)  (~1 nm / ct) (DC calibration, approximate, varies from ~ )  (0.744/f0)^2 (pendulum response, where f0 is central SG frequency) / 4000 m (or 2000 m for H2) will give you a peak amplitude in strain. # Time Cfg Waveform file ETMX ETMY hpeak (strain) wfsg100Q9.dat e wfsg153Q9.dat e wfsg235Q9.dat e wfsg361Q9.dat e wfsg554Q9.dat e wfsg850Q9.dat e wfsg1304Q9.dat e wfsg2000Q9.dat e-18

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project10 SG injections: frequencies, amplitudes SG central frequencies f 0 are color-coded Closed circles are detected bursts; Open circles are undetected (H1)

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project11 Analysis  Data were analyzed through the standard Burst pipeline  Pre-filtering in datacond, including 100 Hz HPF and whitening »For the first few injection runs, HPF 150 Hz and S1 whitening  Then, data from each IFO were passed through tfclusters and slope ETG’s  Each ETG returns triggers with start_time and trigger strength  tfclusters also returns a central frequency  Time resolution: »tfclusters uses time bins of 1/8 second, start_time is quantized in those units (125 msec) »Slope is expected to give < 50 msec resolution

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project12 Trigger power (tfclusters) Feb 13 injections Before frequency consistency cutAfter frequency consistency cut L. Cadonati

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project13 TFCLUSTERS central frequency vs injected frequency The red, off diagonal events are the ones rejected by the frequency cut (background noise). The blue, off diagonal events have large bandwidth, covering the injected frequency, thus pass the frequency cut.

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project14 Timing accuracy Injection peaks at 0.5 secs, starts ~10’s of msec before then Tfclusters (left) is quantized in bins of 1/8 sec. Slope (right) peak is 10 msec before 0.5 sec.

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project15 Results from WaveBurst  WaveBurst DSO (S. Klimenko, I. Yakushin) cross-correlates data streams from 2 detectors in wavelet basis.  Run on H1 and H2 detectors, using the 23 groups of 8 SG bursts from Feb 13, 2003  Biorthogonal wavelet of 16 th order was used  WaveBurst TF resolution of 1/32 sec x 16 Hz

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project16 Central frequency from WaveBurst

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project17 WaveBurst power

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project18 Central time of WaveBurst cluster

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project19 ETG strength ~ xrms 2 There’s a lot of scatter, but most injections indeed show strength ~ xrms 2 Don’t compare the different colors; they’re different frequencies, and the IFOs have different sensitivities. The black dots are at 100 Hz, and we hpf’ed at 150 Hz! Still, a lot of signals were not found – under investigation!

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project20 H1 – L1 cross-correlation Filtered AS_Q data streams 554 Hz SG at hrms ~ 2e-20 Injected in H1 and L1 simultaneously Correlation coefficient and confidence L. Cadonati

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project21 Intra-run injections and stability A much more limited set of injections are being done throughout S1. Oops! Used different pre-filtering for the 3/7/03 injections! Need to run with the new filters on all injections; trying to get the data and filters all available at one ldas…

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project22 Comparison with SW injections Comparison currently only available for latest round of intra- run injections into H1. Solid points = HW Open diamonds = SW Find 45 o line connecting points and diamonds of same color (f 0 )? That’s qualitative evidence that HW and SW injections with same (nominal) xrms are found by tfclusters with same strength. Much more work, statistics, etc, required to establish this quantitatively!

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project23 Why did tfclusters fail to see some of the louder injections? central time: quality factor: 9 central frequency: 2 kHz duration: 4.5 ms bandwidth: 222 Hz dac amplitude: counts displacement amplitude: 12.9 x 10^-15 m strain amplitude: 3.22 x 10^-18 strain spectral density: 152 x 10^-21 Hz^-1/2 This nice loud injection was not observed:

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project24 HW injections help to better tune algorithm parameters Rectangular window, No overlap, 8 Hz/125 msec bins Hanning window, 50% overlap, 8 Hz/125 msec bins Hanning window, 50% overlap, 128 Hz/7.8 msec bins Need better windowing to reduce leakage, better binning to improve resolution for such short bursts Not yet verified that tfclusters detects these with these changes Could have seen this with SW injections, but the urgency of HW detection analysis made it happen! S. Chatterjee

LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project25 Summary  HW Burst injections, pre-S2 and during S2, are a powerful tool for honing algorithms, building confidence in detection ability, monitoring detection stability, finding problems  Confirms ability to detect bursts at ~ expected level  Comparison of HW and SW injections: qualitatively, in the right ballpark  Failure to detect some signals with tfclusters is under investigation