LIGO S6 Detector Characterization Studies

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 S5 Environmental Disturbances: August ‘06 Robert Schofield, U of O Erik Katsavounidis (MIT), Laura Cadonati (MIT), Michele Zanolin (MIT), Dennis Ugolini.
Advertisements

For the Collaboration GWDAW 2005 Status of inspiral search in C6 and C7 Virgo data Frédérique MARION.
E2 Correlations Nelson Christensen Carleton College LSC Detector Characterization LIGO-G Z.
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.
1 S4 Environmental Disturbances Robert Schofield, U of O John Worden, Richard McCarthy, Doug Cook, Hugh Radkins, LHO Josh Dalrymple, SU I.Pre-S4 “fixes”
Glitch Group S5 Activities LSC LSU, Baton Rouge August 15, 2006 G Z L. Blackburn, L. Cadonati, S. Chatterji, J. Dalrymple, S. Desai,
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 DM. Landry – Amaldi5 July 9, 2003 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Monitoring LIGO Data During the S2 Science Run Michael.
Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut) Institut für Atom- und Molekülphysik Detector Characterization of GEO 600 during.
LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization NeedsK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Detector Characterization Needs Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
3 May 2011 VESF DA schoolD. Verkindt 1 Didier Verkindt Virgo-LAPP CNRS - Université de Savoie VESF Data Analysis School Data Quality and vetos.
Data Characterization in Gravitational Waves Soma Mukherjee Max Planck Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik Golm, Germany. Talk at University of Texas, Brownsville.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.
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.
GWDAW12, Dec , Cambridge MA1 Detection Confidence Tests for Burst and Inspiral Candidate Events Romain Gouaty *, for the LSC and the Virgo Collaboration.
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)
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.
LSC glitch group report Shourov K. Chatterji for the LSC glitch group LSC/Virgo meeting 2007 October 24 Hannover, Germany LIGO-G Z.
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 Z August 16, 2006August 2006 LSC Meeting - DetChar 1 Spectral Line Working Group Report Keith Thorne, Chair.
Veto Selection for Gravitational Wave Event Searches Erik Katsavounidis 1 and Peter Shawhan 2 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139,
Status of coalescing binaries search activities in Virgo GWDAW 11 Status of coalescing binaries search activities in Virgo GWDAW Dec 2006 Leone.
G Z 1 New Glitches seen/studied in Block-Normal Shantanu Desai Pennsylvania State University for Glitch Working Group and many others Detchar.
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.
S.Klimenko, G Z, December 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida for.
May 29, 2006 GWADW, Elba, May 27 - June 21 LIGO-G0200XX-00-M Data Quality Monitoring at LIGO John Zweizig LIGO / Caltech.
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.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization SummaryK. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of Detector Characterization Sessions Keith Riles (University.
LIGO-G Z Introd. to Detect. Charact. Sessions K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Introduction to the Detector Characterization.
LIGO-G Z Inspiral Upper Limits Detector Characterization Nelson Christensen Carleton College August 15, 2001.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
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 March 21, 2007 March 2007 LIGO/Virgo Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Cataloguing Keith Thorne for the Spectral Line Working Group.
LIGO-G D Glitch Investigation Update Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Investigation Group LSC meeting, Hanford November 12, 2003.
LIGO-G Z E4 Correlations: Detector Characterization Nelson Christensen Carleton College August 15, 2001.
LIGO-G05????-00-Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.
Online all-sky burst searches during the joint S6/VSR2 LIGO-Virgo science run Igor Yakushin LIGO Livingston Observatory, Caltech For the LIGO Scientific.
Data Analysis report November, 2009 Gianluca M Guidi
Advanced Virgo Detector Monitoring and Data Quality
Methods and Milestones
S5 First Epoch BNS & BBH Inspiral Update
The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO
LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting
S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati
Coherent detection and reconstruction
WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans
Report on the S2 Run Keith Riles (University of Michigan)
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
Environmental Monitoring: Coupling Function Calculator
Progress Report: Noise Storms and Beam Splitter Oscillations
S2 Bilinear Couplings Study
A Waveform Consistency Test for Binary Inspirals using LIGO data
with coherent WaveBurst pipeline
Preparing GEO600 for Gravitational Wave astronomy (A status report)
Presentation transcript:

LIGO S6 Detector Characterization Studies Nelson Christensen, (for the LSC and Virgo, and especially the LSC’s Detector Characterization Working Group) Carleton College

Organization of the talk Detector characterization (Det Char) studies for LIGO’s Sixth Scientific Run (S6) The search for noise lines affecting pulsar and stochastic searches Investigation into “glitches”, and the construction or vetoes for inspiral and burst searches Some examples and observations from S6 at LlGO Hanford Observatory (LHO) and LIGO Livingston Observatory (LLO) Conclusion N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 LIGO S6 Det Char Studies Many LSC members participate in Det Char studies Good mix of data analysts, and scientists at the sites G. González leads the LSC Det Char group; J. Smith and L. Cadonati lead the Glitch sub-group Typically ~20 people participate in telecons twice a week Scientific monitors (scimons) during S6 are required to take week-long shifts at the site so that they can get more involved in detector characterization studies There is a long list of potential det char tasks for scimons Scimons can define data quality flags based on their direct observations of events at the sites N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Fscans and Line Identification Fscans (pulsar search code) on strain h(t), auxiliary channels Use pulsar search tools to look for noise lines Search for coincident lines among other channels Example: a significant line at both sites was found to be due to VME CPUs at both observatories See poster by M.Coughlin on noise line searches N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Coherence and Line Identification Coherence calculated between h(t) and numerous auxiliary channels. Results of weekly averages are posted Web-based tools for searching for significant lines in coherence and Fscan results In S6 new problematic (2 Hz harmonic) lines are seen N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 5

Dead Channel Monitor (DCM) The DCM detects malfunctioning or dead physical environment monitoring (PEM) channels based on various criteria. Updates a website every ten minutes with results Scimons check this and report any malfunctioning channels seen N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Measuring environmental coupling: “PEM Injections” acoustic seismic acoustic / seismic seismic upconversion magnetic RF broadcast from here N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Summary of S6a LHO PEM injections * Acoustic coupling at central building is like S5; coupling levels at interferometer output mode cleaner are already generally lower than at the laser location. * End station acoustic coupling levels are lower than S5, possibly because of baffle installation. * Glitches from seismic transients at Y-end were eliminated by lowering EY side servo gain. N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Summary of S6a LHO PEM injections * Seismic upconversion problems for 1.2 Hz ground shaking at both end stations; levels are roughly the same as during S5. * RF coupling at 25 MHz is at roughly the same level as during S5. LLO is now 2 orders of magnitude below LHO. * Magnetic field coupling is roughly the same as S5; thus new magnets are all oriented properly. * Ambient magnetic fields around interferometer output were found to be responsible for the large 60 Hz sidebands in the data. A feed-forward servo has made dramatic improvements. 9 N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 9

Data Quality and Vetoes Data quality flags cut out second to many second long times when we have reason to believe the detector is behaving badly Event-by-event vetoes cut out ~100ms to 1s times based on aux channel triggers that have been shown to have a safe and significant relationship with h(t) triggers h(t) wind mic. N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 10 time 10

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Data Quality Flags Online flags produced by Data Monitor Tool SciMon flags (e.g. human in control room) New for S6: web insertion of scimon flags Offline flags from DetChar (e.g. Autoburt, see below) Access via database access tools Good progress on checking, ranking N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 11

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Glitch Studies Weekly glitch shifts for L1, H1 with a lot of automated information and tools SciMon follow up of loudest Omega (a burst search) triggers Independent investigations N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Used Percentage Veto (UPV) Using KleineWelle (KW) burst-glitch pipeline triggers Used % = Used KW triggers/Total KW triggers Raise KW significance threshold until Used % > 50% Use with clustered inspiral triggers, +/- 1s veto window. Veto has been implemented in S6 Daily results generated for Det Char studies Weekly results to be implemented as vetoes for binary inspirial ihope pipeline Applied to H1, L1 and Virgo Interesting effects have already been seen; problems identified and corrected See poster by T. Isogai on the UPV N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Used Percentage Veto Threshold The used percentage as a function of KW trigger significance for a particular auxiliary channel. UPV picks a threshold significance where the used percentage exceeds 50%, shown as a red line in the plot. N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 UPV and a Thunderstorm N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 hveto hveto is another a good way to look for classes of glitches. 1. Finds most significant correlation between an auxiliary channel and DARM_ERR (output channel) in lists of KW triggers made from all channels. 2. Then, deletes all DARM_ERR triggers vetoed by that channel. 3. And then looks again for significant correlation. "Round 2" winner treated the same as Round 1: Delete all of its DARM_ERR triggers and look again, repeating until no significant correlations found. Process converges, and sorts triggers into groups, as measured by which auxiliary channels were correlated with them. hveto runs daily, and has been rerun over weeks of S6A, with the results implemented as part of the LIGO – Virgo burst search. N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

hveto Example: POB_Q in H1 Snapshot of a typical day when POB_Q related to many DARM_ERR glitches. J. Smith LIGO-GXXXXX-v1 LSC-Virgo Budapest September 2009

Observations with hveto in S6 Glitches group into distinctive families. There are many such families. Rarely, single-channel (or few-channel) families. Usually, many channels drop by significant amounts. Many channels have high use percentage, but others are have quite poor use percentage. Channels typically work well during brief periods of time. Why? N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Vetoes Work! S6a H1 Omega burst triggers vs. SNR: Red, after application of Cat1 flags; Blue, then apply h-veto. S6a L1 ihope inspiral triggers vs. SNR: Blue, after application of Cat1 and 2 flags; Red, then apply UPV veto. N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

SNR of CWB Triggers in S6a L1 H1 Single IFO SNR plots from coherent Wave Burst (grey) overlaid with the single IFO Omega burst triggers. Black line is Gaussian. Note that the SNR ~10 events are the problem for the coherent analysis. N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 L1 POB_I/Q Glitches N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

LSC-Virgo Budapest September 2009 OMC QPD Saturation Output mode cleaner quadrant photodiode saturations were coincident with 20-30% of H1 glitches in early S6 J. Smith LIGO-GXXXXX-v1 LSC-Virgo Budapest September 2009

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 L1 OMC glitches Identified by loudest event follow-up one millisecond downward spike in OMC-PD_SUM, followed by a slower oscillation often shows as loudest daily omega trigger ongoing investigation N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Autoburt Glitches Backup snapshots of digital system produce glitches with correlation to (not very high) CPU load spikes DQ flagged and removed for S6B H1:DCH-AUTOBURT_GLITCH_WIDE:1 [933843615 933843855) Aug 09 2009 09:00:00-09:04:00 UTC 9.5% deadtime  min min N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 24

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Spectra stationarity The noise can have a distinct spectral shape while still having gaussian probabilities. To compare to the Rayleigh distribution, the we normalize by the median value for each frequency bin. The dashed lines represent the contour for pure Gaussian noise. N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 25

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Summary A lot of activity in line, glitch, calibration, PEM and other areas during S6 Very good feedback provided by the analysis groups (burst, inspiral, pulsar and stochastic) In S6b (present) we continue to identify and eliminate noise sources Right now there is a period of intense activity at the sites by detector characterization group members and commissioners N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Extra Slides N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 Noise Spectra N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 28

Spectrum stationarity N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010 29

Detailed PEM Investigations Noise injections and response of physical and environmental monitors (PEMs) Example: More upconversion noise N Christensen, GWDAW-14, Jan 26 2010

Used Percentage Veto – WFS4 Identified in E14. Angle-to-length coupling reduced, but glitch source presumably still active. Time [s] LSC-Virgo Budapest September 2009