LIGO-G040319-01-Z Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

AURIGA-LIGO Activity F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara for the LIGO-AURIGA JWG 2nd ILIAS-GW Meeting, October 24th and 25th, Palma de Mallorca,

Advertisements

LIGO-G Z Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

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,

LIGO- G Z August 19, 2004August 2004 LSC Meeting 1 Towards an Astrophysics-Based Burst ETG Tuning Keith Thorne Penn State University Relativity.

GWDAW /12/16 - G Z1 Report on the First Search for BBH Inspiral Signals on the S2 LIGO Data Eirini Messaritaki University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

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 Z Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates Laura Cadonati Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Current status of Joint LIGO-TAMA Inspiral Analysis In collaboration with: Patrick Brady, Nobuyuki Kanda, Hideyuki Tagoshi, Daisuke Tatsumi, the LIGO Scientific.

G Z April 2007 APS Meeting - DAP GGR Gravitational Wave AstronomyKeith Thorne Coincidence-based LIGO GW Burst Searches and Astrophysical Interpretation.

Observing the Bursting Universe with LIGO: Status and Prospects Erik Katsavounidis LSC Burst Working Group 8 th GWDAW - UWM Dec 17-20, 2003.

S.Klimenko, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.

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 Z The AURIGA-LIGO Joint Burst Search L. Cadonati, G. Prodi, L. Baggio, S. Heng, W. Johnson, A. Mion, S. Poggi, A. Ortolan, F. Salemi, P.

LIGO-G M GWDAW, December LIGO Burst Search Analysis Laura Cadonati, Erik Katsavounidis LIGO-MIT.

S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), G.Mitselmakher (UF),

ILIAS WP1 – Cascina IGEC – First experience using the data of 5 bar detectors: ALLEGRO, AURIGA, EXPLORER NAUTILUS and NIOBE. – 1460.

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.

Amaldi-7 meeting, Sydney, Australia, July 8-14, 2007 LIGO-G Z All-Sky Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts during the fifth LSC Science Run Igor.

LIGO- G D Burst Search Report Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting LIGO1 Plenary Session 18 August 2003 Hannover.

Searches for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Erik Katsavounidis MIT for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Amaldi-6 Conference Okinawa, Japan June 23,

LIGO-G Z Results of the LIGO-TAMA S2/DT8 Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

LIGO-G Z Results from LIGO's Second Search for Gravitational-Wave Bursts Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

1 Status of Search for Compact Binary Coalescences During LIGO’s Fifth Science Run Drew Keppel 1 for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 California Institute.

LIGO-G Data Analysis Techniques for LIGO Laura Cadonati, M.I.T. Trento, March 1-2, 2007.

LIGO- G D Experimental Upper Limit from LIGO on the Gravitational Waves from GRB Stan Whitcomb For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Informal.

1 Laura Cadonati, MIT For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS meeting Tampa, FL April 16, 2005 LIGO Hanford ObservatoryLIGO Livingston Observatory New.

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, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.

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.

GWDAW10, UTB, Dec , Search for inspiraling neutron star binaries using TAMA300 data Hideyuki Tagoshi on behalf of the TAMA collaboration.

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.

First Year S5 Low Mass Compact Binary Coalescences Drew Keppel 1 representing the LIGO/VIRGO Compact Binary Coalescence Group 1 California Institute of.

LIGO-G Z Upper Limits from LIGO and TAMA on Gravitational-Wave Bursts Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech for the LIGO and TAMA Collaborations.

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 Results of the LIGO-TAMA S2/DT8 Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.

TAUP 2007, Sendai, September 12, 2007 IGEC2 COLLABORATION: A NETWORK OF RESONANT BAR DETECTORS SEARCHING FOR GRAVITATIONAL WAVES Massimo Visco on behalf.

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,

LIGO-G Z TFClusters Tuning for the LIGO-TAMA Search Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech.

S5 First Epoch BNS Inspiral Results Drew Keppel 1 representing the Inspiral Group 1 California Institute of Technology Nov LSC Meeting MIT, 4 November.

Status of the LIGO-AURIGA Joint Burst Analysis F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara on behalf of the AURIGA Collaboration and the LIGO Scientific.

GWDAW11 – Potsdam Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration.

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 11/13/2003LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 BlockNormal Performance Studies John McNabb & Keith Thorne, for the Penn State University.

LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LSC Burst Analysis Group LSC Observational Results Meeting November 4, 2006 The S4 LIGO All-Sky Burst Search.

LSC Meeting, June 3, 2006 LIGO-G Z 1 Status of inspiral search reviews Alan Weinstein (LIGO Laboratory / Caltech) For the LSC Internal review.

LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.

GRB triggered Inspiral Searches in the fifth Science Run of LIGO Alexander Dietz Cardiff University for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration LIGO-G Z.

Palma de Mallorca - October 24 th, 2005 IGEC 2 REPORT International Gravitational Events Collaboration ALLEGRO– AURIGA – ROG (EXPLORER-NAUTILUS)

Igor Yakushin, LIGO Livingston Observatory

r-statistic performance in S2

LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting

Coherent detection and reconstruction

Maria Principe University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy

Background estimation in searches for binary inspiral

Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates

Burst Figure of Merit Julien Sylvestre LSC Meeting, March 2004

Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analyses

Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis

Presentation transcript:

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 ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/052 Outline l Background l Science with LIGO-TAMA l Analysis Status l Upper Limits from the Playground l Remaining Tasks and Outlook

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/053 Un-triggered Bursts Analysis l The LIGO S2 un-triggered search for generic GWBs at high frequencies is being carried out jointly with TAMA. »LIGO-only search: Hz »LIGO-TAMA search: Hz l Philosophy of LIGO-TAMA: Use machinery and techniques common with the LIGO-only low- frequency search »ETGs, coincidence, r-statistic, time lags, MDC simulation frames, low false rate (<<1/S2), rate vs strength upper limits, … l Seek optimal ways to combine LIGO and TAMA for best science.

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/054 LIGO-TAMA in S2/DT8 LIGO and TAMA look with best sensitivity at different frequencies: l Tune for signals near minimum of envelope, [ ]Hz. l Complementary to LIGO- only bursts search in [64,1100]Hz. Duty cycles: H174% H258% L137% T181%

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/055 Science with TAMA l TAMA-LIGO 4X search has several interesting features: »4X coincidence allows for searches with very low false rates (nanoHz). »Extra time lags allow much more accurate background estimates –LIGO 2-site network = 47 lags in (-115s,+115s) –LIGO-TAMA 3-site network = 47 2 = 2209 lags in (-115s,+115s). »Extra non-aligned site with long baseline: exploit for sky direction? polarization information? (Not yet explored). l But 3X searches also valuable: »Can use TAMA as substitute for a missing LIGO detector. »Eg: H1-H2-T1 coincidence allows us to use the large amount of H1-H2 data that would otherwise be lost because of poor L1 duty cycle (Cadonati, also done in joint inspiral search).

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/056 Data Sets l TAMA doubles total usable data set »Better chance of “getting lucky” in a search »Cut rate upper limits in half »Cost: some loss in efficiency (minor effect) l Response: Analyze all H1-H2-(L1 or T1) data »H1-L1-T1, H2-L1-T1: small amount of data, much higher false rate. Ignore. H1-H2-L1-T1250hr H1-H2-  L1-T1 325hr H1-H2-L1-  T1 62hr total LIGO-TAMA637hr total LIGO-only312hr  L1  L1 not operating  T1  T1 not operating

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/057 l Event Generation separately by each collaboration: »BlockNormal, Power, TFClusters, WaveBurst for LIGO, Power for TAMA »Single tuning for all data sets: maximize efficiencies while keeping < 1 background event for S2. l Coincidence & Cross-Correlation: »Exchange triggers, look for coincidences in all IFOs operating »Use r-statistic cross-correlation test among LIGO triggers (H1-H2-L1 or H1- H2) to reduce false alarm rate »Time-lag analysis gives false rate. l Efficiencies: »Measure using coordinated signal injections (MDC frames) l Detections/Upper Limits: »Rate of detectable events, rate versus event strength. Analysis Procedure

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/058 Playground analysis (10% subset of data): 1.Compute false rate of each ETG & IFO as a function of threshold. 2.Use simulations to tune coincidence parameters (LIGO 3X and LIGO-TAMA) and estimate efficiencies as a function of threshold. 3.Perform coincidence and compute “practice” upper limit. –Modify tuning/thresholds if necessary. Freeze tuning and repeat coincidence, upper limit analysis for full data set. Current Status we are here »Goal: complete by end September

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/059 Playground Analysis l Available triggers: »TAMA: Complete sets for raw data with high threshold (SNR>10), complete SG13 simulations (sine-Gaussians) at low threshold. »TFClusters: complete H1-H2 and H1-H2-L1 raw triggers, complete SG13 triggers. »WaveBurst: complete H1-H2-L1 and SG13 triggers. »Power, BlockNormal: Triggers in production. l Since have complete trigger sets for TAMA and TFClusters, use these in playground analysis. »Need to perform full playground analysis with all ETGs before performing coincidence over full data set.

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/0510 Efficiency vs False Rate From coordinated simulation runs (SG13) Test waveforms: Q=9 sine-Gaussians in [ ]Hz (averaged over band). Tune for similar efficiencies. TFClusters-TAMA operating points TAMA TFClusters (3X) WaveBurst (3X)

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/0511 Measured Network Efficiency Different network combinations have similar efficiency (factor ~2 in 50% point). Will get better statistics from full data set simulations. Preliminary

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/0512 Upper Limits NetworkNT (s) N bck R 90% ( 1/day )h 50% ( Hz -1/2 ) H1-H2-L1-T x H1-H2-  L1-T < x H1-H2-L1-  T < x Playground (measured) < *2.4x Full Data Set (expected) 01.7x10 6 < *2.4x Including the R-Statistic: * Treating all 3 data sets as one experiment (naïve).

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/0513 Upper Limits Including the R-Statistic: * Treating all 3 data sets as one experiment (naïve). NetworkNT (s) N bck R 90% ( 1/day )h 50% ( Hz -1/2 ) H1-H2-L1-T x H1-H2-  L1-T < x H1-H2-L1-  T < x Playground (measured) < *2.4x Full Data Set (expected) 01.7x10 6 < *2.4x best efficiency lowest false rate largest livetime

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/0514 Upper Limits Preliminary

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/0515 Next Steps l Repeat playground analysis including other LIGO ETGs. »Fix ETG and R-Statistic thresholds. »Limit each ETG to same false rate. l Full data set coincidence, final upper limits. l Other: »May want simulations with more waveforms - only sine-Gaussians so far (processing MDC frames very laborious for TAMA). »Technical point: Feldman-Cousins procedure not trivially extendible to multiple independent experiments with different backgrounds (eg: H1-H2-L1-T1, H1-H2- T1, etc). Need to think carefully about algorithm for computing final upper limits.

LIGO-G ZSutton LSC Mtg 2004/06/0516 Summary l TAMA-LIGO joint search for GWBs in S2 is in late stages. »High-frequency search complementary to LIGO-only search at low frequencies. l Two parts of search: »4X: very low false rate »3X: lots of additional observation time l Expect rate upper limit ~1/2 that attainable with LIGO-only search. l Current status: »Rapid progress over last two months. »Currently performing playground analysis. »Goal: Complete full analysis by end September, present paper at Nov LSC meeting. l S3?