Inspiral Glitch Veto Studies

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

A walk through some statistic details of LSC results.

For the Collaboration GWDAW 2005 Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data Frédérique MARION.

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.

GWDAW-8 (December 17-20, 2003, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) Search for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data Masaki Ando Department of Physics, University.

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.

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.

D Q 19 March. 2008LSC-Virgo meeting1 Status of Data Quality in Virgo D. Verkindt, LAPP-CNRS on behalf of the Virgo DQ team (M. Bizouard, L. Bosi, S. Chatterji,

LIGO- G Z 03/23/2005LSC Meeting March BlockNormal Near-Online S4 Burst Analysis Keith Thorne Penn State University Relativity Group (Shantanu.

CaJAGWR Seminar, 11 March 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)LIGO-G E First LIGO Search for Binary Inspirals Peter Shawhan (LIGO Lab / Caltech)

LIGO PAC Meeting, 6 June 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)LIGO-G E First LIGO Search for Binary Inspirals Peter Shawhan (LIGO Lab / Caltech)

The Role of Data Quality in S5 Burst Analyses Lindy Blackburn 1 for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.

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.

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)

GWDAW11, Postdam 18th-21th December 2006 E. Cuoco, on behalf of Virgo collaboration 1 “Data quality studies for burst analysis of Virgo data acquired during.

Veto Selection for Gravitational Wave Event Searches Erik Katsavounidis 1 and Peter Shawhan 2 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139,

1 Hierarchical glitch classification analysis. Soma Mukherjee CGWA, UTB LSC/Virgo Det Char, Baton Rouge, March 21, 2007 LIGO-G

Multidimensional classification of burst triggers from LIGO S5 run Soma Mukherjee for the LSC Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy University of Texas.

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.

LSC Meeting, 19 March 2003 Shawhan, Leonor, MarkaLIGO-G D Introduction to Hardware Signal Injections Peter Shawhan, Isabel Leonor, Szabi Márka.

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

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.

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

May 29, 2006 GWADW, Elba, May 27 - June 21 LIGO-G0200XX-00-M Data Quality Monitoring at LIGO John Zweizig LIGO / Caltech.

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,

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

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.

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.

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-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.

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.

The first AURIGA-TAMA joint analysis proposal BAGGIO Lucio ICRR, University of Tokyo A Memorandum of Understanding between the AURIGA experiment and the.

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

Data Quality Investigation LIGO-G E John Zweizig Caltech/LIGO Liivingston, March 18, 2003.

LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan for the LSC-Virgo Burst Analysis Working Group LSC-Virgo Meeting July 23, 2007 Eyes Wide Open: Searching for Gravitational.

Search for gravitational waves from binary inspirals in S3 and S4 LIGO data. Thomas Cokelaer on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Data Analysis report November, 2009 Gianluca M Guidi

SC03 failed results delayed FDS: parameter space searches

S3 Spinning Binary Black Hole Search: Status Report

The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO

LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting

Overview of E10 / S3 Hardware Injections

S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati

WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans

S2/S3 Glitch Investigation Update

Towards the first coherent multi-ifo search for NS binaries in LIGO

Line tracking methods used in LineMon

Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates

Burst Figure of Merit Julien Sylvestre LSC Meeting, March 2004

Analysis of L1 WaveMon S2 veto triggers

S2 Bilinear Couplings Study

Inspiral Waveform Consistency Tests

A Waveform Consistency Test for Binary Inspirals using LIGO data

Presentation transcript:

Inspiral Glitch Veto Studies LIGO-G030600-00-Z Inspiral Glitch Veto Studies Peter Shawhan (LIGO Lab / Caltech) For the Inspiral Analysis Group LSC Meeting November 12, 2003 LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Looking Back: Vetoes in the S1 Inspiral Analysis Vetoed H1 events if there was also a large glitch in REFL_I Within a time window of ±1 second Very clean veto: deadtime = 0.2% Considered using AS_I as a veto for L1 Abandoned this due to veto safety concerns LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Overview of Inspiral Veto Studies Has been a lengthy process! Have pursued a few different approaches to explore vetoes: (All using inspiral triggers from playground data) • Visual examination of loudest playground events with DTT Look at AS_Q and many other channels, with various filters • Look at inspiral trigger rate on segment-by-segment basis • Calculate veto efficiency vs. deadtime for possible vetoes Use veto triggers generated by glitchMon Various channels, filters, thresholds Veto safety has been evaluated for some channels AS_I is unsafe; POB_I, POB_Q; REFL_I, REFL_Q are safe LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

A Loud “Inspiral” Event in L1 L1:LSC-AS_Q Both with 80-500 Hz band-pass filter L1:LSC-MICH_CTRL Also see glitching in POB_I, POB_Q, REFL_Q & PRC_CTRL Seconds after 730598850 LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech) Another Loud Event in L1 L1:LSC-AS_Q With 200-500 Hz band-pass filter I could not find a corresponding signature in any auxiliary channel Seconds after 734153300 LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech) The Loudest Event in H2 H2:LSC-AS_Q Both with 80-150 Hz band-pass filter H2:LSC-POB_I Unfortunately, most of the H2 playground events do not seem to correlate with POB_I Seconds after 731133633 LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Inspiral Trigger Rates, Segment by Segment In segments with high rates, sometimes triggers are spread out… SNR vs. time L1 …and sometimes they form “stripes” SNR vs. time LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Veto Efficiency vs. Deadtime for Various Prospective Vetoes For a given veto channel, filter, and veto trigger threshold, calculate veto efficiency and deadtime for various “windows”, and for different sets of inspiral triggers Example: L1:LSC-POB_I with Chebyshev 70-Hz high-pass filter, threshold = 6σ, windows from 0 to ±1 second (also require live intervals to be at least 4 seconds long) efficiency % Veto % Deadtime SNR>8 SNR>10 SNR>12 Note: AS_DC is not nearly as good a veto for inspiral as for burst LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech) Timing Issues A glitch can yield a calculated inspiral coalescence time far from the time of the glitch L1:LSC-AS_Q Seconds after 730885223 “Coalescence time” LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech) Timing Issues “Inaccurate” inspiral coalescence times are understood to arise from ringing of the template filter, combined with the 2 threshold LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Exploring Wider Windows Same case as before: L1:LSC-POB_I with Chebyshev 70-Hz high-pass filter, threshold = 6σ SNR>8 SNR>10 SNR>12 Window Dead% effic used effic used effic used -1,+1 1.9 14.4 7.5 20.4 1.8 29.8 0.7 -2,+2 2.8 18.2 9.1 23.4 2.3 30.2 0.8 -2,+4 3.7 23.8 11.4 29.9 2.6 33.5 0.9 -4,+4 4.4 24.4 12.8 32.3 3.1 38.0 1.1 -4,+6 5.2 25.1 14.6 35.4 3.5 45.5 1.2 -4,+8 5.9 26.8 15.9 40.5 3.6 56.3 1.2 -8,+8 7.2 30.6 17.5 43.6 4.1 57.9 1.4 -8,+12 8.4 31.0 19.6 45.1 4.8 59.4 1.4 Can achieve rather high veto efficiencies, but deadtime is somewhat higher than we are comfortable with Some segments have very high deadtime, but few/no inspiral triggers LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Exploring Higher Veto Trigger Thresholds For various target deadtimes: SNR>8 SNR>10 SNR>12 Channel Filt Th Window Dead% eff used eff used eff used MICH_CTRL 100 30 -8,+8 0.5 9.5 23.3 26.3 9.3 52.3 4.7 POB_I 70 10 -.5,.5 0.5 5.1 13.2 8.7 4.2 19.5 1.4 MICH_CTRL 100 25 -8,+12 1.0 11.6 23.9 27.7 6.8 53.6 2.3 POB_I 70 9 -2,+2 1.0 13.8 17.3 20.0 5.1 29.9 1.5 AS_DC 10 6 -.5,.5 1.9 7.0 2.3 6.7 0.2 2.7 0.1 AS_DC no 6 -.5,.5 2.5 7.8 3.9 10.7 0.3 6.3 0.0 MICH_CTRL 100 11 -1,+1 1.9 14.1 6.2 31.4 1.3 38.3 0.5 POB_I 70 6 -1,+1 1.9 14.4 7.5 20.4 1.8 29.8 0.7 POB_I 70 9 -4,+8 1.7 17.0 23.5 30.7 8.1 51.9 1.5 AS_DC 10 6 -2,+2 5.3 11.4 4.8 10.9 0.3 3.7 0.1 AS_DC no 6 -1,+1 4.3 8.4 5.1 11.1 0.4 6.3 0.0 MICH_CTRL 100 11 -4,+4 5.3 23.1 10.5 40.3 2.0 46.6 0.7 POB_I 70 6 -4,+6 5.2 25.1 14.6 35.4 3.5 45.5 1.2 LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech) Physical Mechanisms Many of the L1 triggers, and much of the POB_I variability which leads to excess deadtime, seem to have significant frequency content near 70 Hz Physical mechanisms for this: PRC loop (for which POB_I is the error signal) has known instability at 70 Hz when gain is too high When gain of DARM loop goes too low (due to low optical gain), get glitches at 70 Hz The inspiral filter code used a low-frequency cutoff of 70 Hz LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)

Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech) Summary Some promising veto conditions for L1 We have not yet decided on the “optimal” choice No good candidates for H1 or H2 In H2, POB_I correlates sometimes, but unimpressive overall Plan to re-filter data with a higher low-frequency cutoff Hope to make inspiral event rate lower and more stable Will then revisit vetoes LSC Meeting, 10 Nov 2003 Peter Shawhan (LIGO/Caltech)