LIGO-G030610-00-D Glitch Investigation Update Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Investigation Group LSC meeting, Hanford November 12, 2003.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
S3/S4 BBH report Thomas Cokelaer LSC Meeting, Boston, 3-4 June 2006.
Advertisements

For the Collaboration GWDAW 2005 Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data Frédérique MARION.
GWDAW9 – Annecy December 15-18, 2004 A. Di Credico Syracuse University LIGO-G Z 1 Gravitational wave burst vetoes in the LIGO S2 and S3 data analyses.
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,
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, Dec 2003 Shawhan, Christensen, Gonzalez1 LIGO Inspiral Veto Studies Peter Shawhan (LIGO Lab / Caltech) Nelson Christensen (Carleton College) Gabriela.
G Z 1 Block-Normal, Event Display and Q-scan Based Glitch and Veto Studies Shantanu Desai for Penn. State Burst Group And Glitch Working Group.
LIGO- G Z March 22, 2006March 2006 LSC Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Catalogue Status Keith Thorne (PSU) for the Spectral Line Catalogue.
LIGO-G Z LSC March 2004 KYF1 Veto efficiency study of triple coincidence playground WaveBurst events using WaveMon and glitchMon S2 veto triggers.
E12 Report from the Burst Group Burst Analysis Group and the Glitch Investigation Team.
Glitch Group S5 Activities LSC LSU, Baton Rouge August 15, 2006 G Z L. Blackburn, L. Cadonati, S. Chatterji, J. Dalrymple, S. Desai,
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.
LIGO-G DM. Landry – Amaldi5 July 9, 2003 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Monitoring LIGO Data During the S2 Science Run Michael.
LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.
Observing the Bursting Universe with LIGO: Status and Prospects Erik Katsavounidis LSC Burst Working Group 8 th GWDAW - UWM Dec 17-20, 2003.
3 May 2011 VESF DA schoolD. Verkindt 1 Didier Verkindt Virgo-LAPP CNRS - Université de Savoie VESF Data Analysis School Data Quality and vetos.
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.
1 Data quality and veto studies for the S4 burst search: Where do we stand? Alessandra Di Credico Syracuse University LSC Meeting, Ann Arbor (UM) June.
S2 and S3 Correlation Studies Nelson Christensen Sarah Vigeland Physics and Astronomy Carleton College Detector Characterization Session LSC Meeting August.
Glitch Group S5 Activities Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Working Group LSC meeting, Hanford March 21, 2006 G Z.
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)
LSC glitch group report Shourov K. Chatterji for the LSC glitch group LSC/Virgo meeting 2007 October 24 Hannover, Germany LIGO-G Z.
Veto Selection for Gravitational Wave Event Searches Erik Katsavounidis 1 and Peter Shawhan 2 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139,
LIGO- G D Burst Search Report Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting LIGO1 Plenary Session 18 August 2003 Hannover.
G Z 1 New Glitches seen/studied in Block-Normal Shantanu Desai Pennsylvania State University for Glitch Working Group and many others Detchar.
A Waveform Consistency Test for Binary Inspirals using LIGO data LSC Inspiral Analysis Working Group LIGO-G Z LSC Meeting Andres C. Rodriguez.
Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
S5 BNS Inspiral Update Duncan Brown Caltech LIGO-G Z.
1 LIGO-G Z Glitch and veto studies in LIGO’s S5 search for gravitational wave bursts Erik Katsavounidis MIT for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
1 Planning notes from August 2005 Burst Group Face-to-Face Meeting LHO, August 18, 2005 Peter Shawhan, scribe LIGO-G Z.
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.
LIGO-G Z Confidence Test for Waveform Consistency of LIGO Burst Candidate Events Laura Cadonati LIGO Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Multidimensional classification analysis of kleine Welle triggers in LIGO S5 run Soma Mukherjee for the LSC University of Texas at Brownsville GWDAW12,
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.
LSC Meeting, August 2002 P. Shawhan / Inspiral U.L. Working GroupLIGO-G Z Vetoes Used in the E7 Inspiral Upper Limit Analysis Part 2 Peter Shawhan,
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.
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 r statistics for time-domain cross correlation on burst candidate events Laura Cadonati LIGO-MIT LSC collaboration meeting, LLO march.
LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)1 Inspiral Waveform Consistency Tests Evan Ochsner and Peter Shawhan (U. of Chicago) (LIGO / Caltech)
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.
S5 First Epoch BNS Inspiral Results Drew Keppel 1 representing the Inspiral Group 1 California Institute of Technology Nov LSC Meeting MIT, 4 November.
LIGO Livingston Observatory Commissioning Status and Proposed Commissioning Activities Prior to S1 Mark Coles May 13, 2002.
LIGO-G E S2 Data Quality Investigation John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO.
LIGO-G D S2 Glitch Investigation Report Laura Cadonati (MIT) on behalf of the Glitch Investigation Team LSC meeting, August 2003, Hannover.
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 Z March 21, 2007 March 2007 LIGO/Virgo Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Cataloguing Keith Thorne for the Spectral Line Working Group.
Data Quality Investigation LIGO-G E John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO Liivingston, March 18, 2003.
LIGO-G05????-00-Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.
Inspiral Glitch Veto Studies
S5 First Epoch BNS & BBH Inspiral Update
r-statistic performance in S2
LIGO S6 Detector Characterization Studies
LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting
S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati
WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans
Background estimation in searches for binary inspiral
S2/S3 Glitch Investigation Update
Towards the first coherent multi-ifo search for NS binaries in LIGO
Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates
Analysis of L1 WaveMon S2 veto triggers
S2 Bilinear Couplings Study
Presentation transcript:

LIGO-G D Glitch Investigation Update Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Investigation Group LSC meeting, Hanford November 12, 2003

LIGO-G D 2 Glitch Investigation MIT: Adhikari, Ballmer, Cadonati, Desai, Katsavounidis, Rawlins SYRACUSE: Bernstein, Dalrymple, Di Credico, Frei, Magri, Saulson CIT: Shawhan, Zweizig LSU/LLO: Gonzalez, Zotov OREGON: Ito, Schofield CARLETON: Christensen, Steussy FLORIDA: Klimenko, Franzen PSU: Ashley identification of outliers (> 4-5 sigma) from the online DataBase population. correlation of glitches among channels and with AS_Q definition of segments with unacceptable glitch rates identification of a usable veto for the Burst and Inspiral analysis groups PartecipantsGoals

LIGO-G D 3 S2 The pursue of glitches is ongoing – so far analyzed only interferometer channels »MICH_CTRL, AS_I, POB_Q, AS_DC »Testing validity of these channels as vetos for Burst and Inspiral analysis Performing reruns of AS_Q and AUX channel glitch search »different methods Veto safety tested with hardware injections Next: PEM channels » lots of work still needed … Summary slide at the August LSC meeting (G ): AS_I: known to be unsafe

LIGO-G D 4 S2: glitchMon vs Burst Candidates Data set Single-IFO playground list: »44 hours at L1 »98 hours at H1 »76 hours at H2. Burst candidates produced from TFCLUSTERS+BurstDSO high-threshold run, with rates ( Hz) of the order of 0.1Hz Diagnostic triggers: glitchMon Threshold: Scan between 3  and 6  Minimum separation: 0.25 seconds Minimum duration: 1 ms Minimum density: 0.1 (10% of the trigger duration must be above threshold)

LIGO-G D 5 Non-linear coupling AS_DC - AS_Q “At low frequencies, the model is that there is a broadband noise level in AS_Q which increases monotonically with the AS_DC level. e.g. the stack shakes, the mirrors twist and the light level seen in AS_DC doubles for ~1 sec. In a whitened time frequency plot this looks like a broad band, 1 sec glitch in AS_Q. It will show up at all frequencies where no other noise source is dominant. The SPOB_MON veto is also a low frequency veto. The model here is that as the effective sideband recycling gain goes down, the gain in all of the LSC servos goes down. Of these, DARM is the first to go unstable and so we see a burst centered around the lower end of the 'phase bubble' (65-70 Hz). “ (Rana) At all three IFOs, burst candidate events best correlated with glitches in unfiltered AS_DC. Similar effects seen in SPOB_MON and WFS*

LIGO-G D 6 AS_DC as a burst veto?  = veto efficiency (fraction of vetoed AS_Q)  = deadtime fraction Figure of merit: FOM = sqrt(1-  )/(1-  ) ≈ sqrt(N res )/T live Need to consider: allowable deadtime And effectivity to remove outliers, safety unfiltered 10 Hz HP unfiltered 10 Hz HP

LIGO-G D 7 Usable vetos? How effective at removing outliers? How safe? Need final set of triggers for a definite answer M. Ito Study of veto safety with hardware injections L Hz AS_DC veto L Hz AS_DC veto H1: AS_DC vs AS_Q SNR histograms before and after veto

LIGO-G D 8 L1 LSC: AS_Q, AS_I, REFL_Q, POB_Q (unfiltered, 10, 70, 100 Hz HP) MICH_CTRL, PRC_CTRL, POB_I, REFL_I (10, 70, 100 Hz HP) AS_DC, REFL_DC, SPOB_MON (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) ASC: WFS1_QP, WFS1_QY, WFS2_QP, WFS2_QY, WFS2_IP, WFS2_IY (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) SUS: ETMX_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, ITMX_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, RM_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, BS_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) PEM: RADIO_LVEA, HAM4_ACCX, HAM4_MIC (comb 60) Combinations glitchMon config deadtime Hz 500 – 1000 Hz Hz LSC-AS_DC nofilt, 3  4.4%37%49%59% LSC-SPOB_MON nofilt, 3  1.7%8%15% 9% OR5.8%41%56%62% AND 1.7%14%20%19% Few % , lag peak 100  500Hz  =20-24% deadtime=2.6%  =20-30% deadtime=1.3%

LIGO-G D 9 H1 LSC: AS_Q, AS_I, REFL_Q, POB_Q (unfiltered, 10, 70, 100 Hz HP) MICH_CTRL, PRC_CTRL, POB_I, REFL_I (10, 70, 100 Hz HP) AS_DC, REFL_DC, SPOB_MON (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) ASC: WFS1_QP, WFS1_QY, WFS2_QP, WFS2_QY, WFS2_IP, WFS2_IY WFS3_IP, WFS3_IY, WFS4_IP, WFS4_IY (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) SUS: ETMX_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, ITMX_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, RM_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, BS_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) PEM: RADIO_LVEA, BSC2_ACCX, BSC3_ACC1X, BSC7_MIC, HAM4_ACCY, BSC10_MAGY (comb 60, 10Hz HP) glitchMon config deadtime Hz 500 – 1000 Hz Hz LSC-AS_DC nofilt, 3  1.6%2%24%25% LSC-SPOB_MON nofilt, 3  3.2%4%21%17% OR4.4%5%34%33% AND 1.4%1.7%19%16% Combinations

LIGO-G D 10 H2 LSC: AS_Q, AS_I, REFL_Q, POB_Q (unfiltered, 10, 70, 100 Hz HP) MICH_CTRL, PRC_CTRL, POB_I, REFL_I (10, 70, 100 Hz HP) AS_DC, REFL_DC, SPOB_MON (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) ASC: WFS1_QP, WFS1_QY, WFS2_QP, WFS2_QY, WFS2_IP, WFS2_IY (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) SUS: ETMX_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, ITMX_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, FMX_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, FMY_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, RM_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR, BS_OPLEV_PERROR/YERROR (unfiltered, 10Hz HP) PEM: RADIO_LVEA, BSC4_ACCX, BSC4_ACCY, BSC4_ACCZ, HAM10_MIC, HAM8_MIC, HAM7_MIC (comb 60, 10Hz HP) Combinations glitchMon config deadtime Hz 500 – 1000 Hz Hz LSC-AS_DC nofilt, 3  2.2%12%20%19% LSC-SPOB_MON nofilt, 3  1.7%2.7%4.3% 4.6% OR4%14.5%23.4%22% AND 0.5%1.7%4.5%5% REFL_DC and unfiltered REFL_Q  ~5-6%  ~1-2%  =30-47% deadtime=6%  =5-9% deadtime=1.5%

LIGO-G D 11 Different burst trigger sets Veto decision still pending - performance depends on trigger sets (frequency in particular) As trigger sets for the Burst analysis are becoming available, we are measuring efficiency and veto safety (TFCLUSTERS, POWER, WAVEBURST, BLOCKNORMAL) Inspiral group has not found AS_DC as useful (see talk by P. Shawhan)

LIGO-G D 12 Ken Yoshiki Franzen, UF Triple coincident (3 IFOs) off-time Waveburst triggers vetoed by L1 Wavemon triggers (50 % of S2, red all WB, blue vetoed WB): WaveMon Veto threshold SNR 4.0  =14%  =1% 65 channels (AS_I excluded) WaveBurst 0 - 4kHz WaveMon vs WaveBurst

LIGO-G D 13 Glitches in E10 and the first week of S3 Scanned the database for AS_Q/aux correlations So far only analyzed glitches from glitchMon Science segments in the first week of S3 (downloaded on friday Nov 8): »L1: 17 segments >=600 sec ( 17 hours, 231 AS_Q events)L1 »H1: 38 segments >=600 sec ( 118 hours, 1377 AS_Q events)H1 »H2: 46 segments >=600 sec ( 106 hours, 1866 AS_Q events)H2 Science segments in E10: »L1: 6 segments >=600 sec ( 2 hours, 76 AS_Q events)L1 »H1: 61 segments >=600 sec ( 117 hours, 358 AS_Q events)H1 »H2: 114 segments >=600 sec ( 62 hours, 917 AS_Q events)H2 Several correlations seen (will not necessarily be true on burst candidates).

LIGO-G D 14 L1: AS_I 70 Hz high pass, > 4  (same as AS_Q) Efficiency = 48.5% (25% in E10) Success = 25% (13% in E10) Deadtime=0.5% (2% in E10) NO HP filter applied, > 4  Efficiency = 17% Success = 40% Deadtime=0.07% (no relevant correlation seen in E10)

LIGO-G D 15 More correlations at L1 (E10,S3) channel HP filter RunDead time Efficienc y Success POB_I70HzE100.7%88%90% S3--- MICH_CTRL70HzE100.4%59%100% S30.11%26% 79% PRC_CTRL70HzE100.7%84%95% S30.08%22.5% 87% POB_Q70HzE10--- S30.04%19.5% 96% Peaks in lag plot also seen in: WFS1_QP, WFS1_QY 10 Hz HP 8-10% efficiency/success <1% deadtime

LIGO-G D 16 Correlations at H1 (E10,S3) channelHP filter RunDead time Effici ency Succe ss AS_I70HzE100.07%23%22% S30.02%15% 70% POB_I70HzE101.5%20%1.7% S30.05%11% 25% POB_Q70HzE100.04%10%33% S30.01%7% 56% SPOB_ MON 10HzE100.03%9%17% S30.04%4% 14% Peaks in lag plot also seen in: AS_I no filter AS_Q no filter REFL_Q 70 Hz HP REFL_DC 10Hz HP WFS1, WFS2 10 Hz HP

LIGO-G D 17 Correlations at H2 (E10,S3) channel config Rundeadtime Efficiency Success AS_I70Hz HPE100.09%30.5%43.5% S30.07%10.5% 42% POB_I70Hz HPE100.06%25%55.5% S30.01%5% 72% POB_Q70Hz HPE100.01%6%98% S30.01%3.5% 79% REFL_I70Hz HPE10< 0.01%4%50% S3< 0.01%1%70% REFL_Q70Hz HPE100.01%1.5%98% S30.01%5%90%

LIGO-G D 18 Correlations at H2 (E10,S3) channel HP filter RunDead time Efficie ncy Succe ss AS_QnofiltE100.05%11%42% S30.02%7.5% 53% AS_DC10HzE100.04%6%52% S30.2%5%15% SPOB_ MON 10HzE100.4%23%7% S31.7%14%2% AS_AC10HzE10<0.01%5%96% S3<0.01%1.2%81% Unfiltered AS_I similar to SPOB_MON Similar to AS_AC (high success, few% efficiency): REFL_DC, ASC-QPDX_DC, ASC-QPDY_DC PSL-FSS_FAST

LIGO-G D 19 Summary S2 glitch investigation: »Broad rerun over channels/filters ~ complete »Non-linear correlations AS_DC (SPOB_MON, REFL_DC) and broadband bursts »to-do: PEM vs H1-H2 coincidences at LHO E10/S3 glitch investigation: »Scanned glitchMon triggers in the database (1 st week of S3 only): some interesting correlations visible in lag plots and scatter plots.