L(h) = || X – A*h ||2 + hT *Ω*h

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Broadband Search for Continuous-Wave Gravitation Radiation with LIGO Vladimir Dergachev (University of Michigan) LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS meeting,
Advertisements

Search for the Gravitational Wave Memory effect with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array Jingbo Wang 1,2,3, Hobbs George 3, Dick Manchester 3, Na Wang 1,4 1.
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.
Oceanography 569 Oceanographic Data Analysis Laboratory Kathie Kelly Applied Physics Laboratory 515 Ben Hall IR Bldg class web site: faculty.washington.edu/kellyapl/classes/ocean569_.
Results from TOBAs Results from TOBAs Cross correlation analysis to search for a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background University of Tokyo Ayaka Shoda.
1/25 Current results and future scenarios for gravitational wave’s stochastic background G. Cella – INFN sez. Pisa.
DelayRatio: A Gravitational Wave Event Physical Likelihood Estimator Based on Detection Delays and SNR Ratios Amber L. Stuver LIGO Livingston ObservatoryCalifornia.
S.Klimenko, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.
Search for gravitational-wave bursts associated with gamma-ray bursts using the LIGO detectors Soumya D. Mohanty On behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Silvia Poggi - GW burst detection strategy in non-homogeneus networks Detection strategies for bursts in networks of non-homogeneus gravitational waves.
A coherent null stream consistency test for gravitational wave bursts Antony Searle (ANU) in collaboration with Shourov Chatterji, Albert Lazzarini, Leo.
LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting April 25, 2006 Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in Data from the.
The RIDGE pipeline as a method to search for gravitational waves associated with magnetar bursts LIGO-G Z Jason Lee, Tiffany Summerscales (Andrews.
Improving the sensitivity of searches for an association between Gamma Ray Bursts and Gravitational Waves Soumya D. Mohanty The University of Texas at.
LIGO-G Z Coherent Analysis of Signals from Misaligned Interferometers M. Rakhmanov, S. Klimenko Department of Physics, University of Florida,
LIGO-G Z A Coherent Network Burst Analysis Patrick Sutton on behalf of Shourov Chatterji, Albert Lazzarini, Antony Searle, Leo Stein, Massimo.
Solution of the Inverse Problem for Gravitational Wave Bursts Massimo Tinto JPL/CIT LIGO Seminar, October 12, 2004 Y. Gursel & M. Tinto, Phys. Rev. D,
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)
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,
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.
Dec 16, 2005GWDAW-10, Brownsville Population Study of Gamma Ray Bursts S. D. Mohanty The University of Texas at Brownsville.
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.
LIGO- G Z August 17, 2005August LSC Meeting – ASIS Session 1 Recovering Hardware Injection Waveforms with Maximum Entropy Tiffany Summerscales.
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 v2 The Search For Continuous Gravitational Waves Gregory Mendell, LIGO Hanford Observatory on behalf of the LIGO Science Collaboration The.
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.
Data Analysis Algorithm for GRB triggered Burst Search Soumya D. Mohanty Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy University of Texas at Brownsville On.
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.
A Comparison of Burst Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms for LIGO Amber L. Stuver Center for Gravitational Wave Physics Penn State University.
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,
Peter Shawhan The University of Maryland & The LIGO Scientific Collaboration Penn State CGWP Seminar March 27, 2007 LIGO-G Z Reaching for Gravitational.
Stochastic Background Data Analysis Giancarlo Cella I.N.F.N. Pisa first ENTApP - GWA joint meeting Paris, January 23rd and 24th, 2006 Institute d'Astrophysique.
LIGO- G Z March 23, 2005March LSC Meeting – ASIS Session 1 Extracting Supernova Information from a LIGO Detection Tiffany Summerscales Penn State.
GWDAW11 – Potsdam Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration.
LIGO-G v1 Searching for Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of High Mass Black Hole Binaries 2014 LIGO SURF Summer Seminar August 21 st, 2014.
LIGO- G Z 11/13/2003LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 BlockNormal Performance Studies John McNabb & Keith Thorne, for the Penn State University.
January 12, 2006Sources & Simulations 1 LIGO Supernova Astronomy with Maximum Entropy Tiffany Summerscales Penn State University.
SEARCH FOR INSPIRALING BINARIES S. V. Dhurandhar IUCAA Pune, India.
Mike Cruise University of Birmingham Searches for very high frequency gravitational waves.
Broadband Search for Continuous-Wave Gravitational Radiation with LIGO Vladimir Dergachev (University of Michigan) for the LIGO scientific collaboration.
Detecting a Galactic Supernova with H2 or GEO
A 2 veto for Continuous Wave Searches
Detecting a Galactic Supernova with H2 or GEO
Searching for pulsars using the Hough transform
Searching for gravitational-wave transients with Advanced detectors
The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO
Coherent wide parameter space searches for gravitational waves from neutron stars using LIGO S2 data Xavier Siemens, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Igor Yakushin, LIGO Livingston Observatory
Searching for Gravitational-Wave Bursts (GWBs) associated with Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) during the LIGO S5 run Isabel Leonor University of Oregon (for the.
Brennan Hughey for the LSC May 12th, 2008
An improved method for estimating the efficiency of GW detectors
Coherent detection and reconstruction
Results from TOBAs Cross correlation analysis to search for a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background University of Tokyo Ayaka Shoda M. Ando, K. Okada,
M.-A. Bizouard, F. Cavalier
Maria Principe University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy
Targeted Searches using Q Pipeline
Stochastic background search using LIGO Livingston and ALLEGRO
Hough search for continuous gravitational waves using LIGO S4 data
M. Benacquista Montana State University-Billings
Search for gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers:
Searching for GRB-GWB coincidence during LIGO science runs
Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates
A Waveform Consistency Test for Binary Inspirals using LIGO data
Recovering Hardware Injection Waveforms with Maximum Entropy
Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis
Presentation transcript:

L(h) = || X – A*h ||2 + hT *Ω*h The RIDGE pipeline as a method to search for gravitational waves associated with magnetar bursts LIGO-G080247-00-Z Jason Lee, Tiffany Summerscales (Andrews University) ; Shantanu Desai (Penn State University); Kazuhiro Hayama (University of Texas, Brownsville); Soumya Mohanty (University of Texas, Brownsville) ; Malik Rakhmanov (University of Texas, Brownsville) ABSTRACT RIDGE is a data analysis pipeline which implements a regularized, coherent approach to search for short-duration gravitational wave (GW) signals in the data from a network of gravitational wave detectors. We discuss the RIDGE pipeline and describe its potential in the search for gravitational waves associated with soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs). SGRs and AXPs are thought to be the result of seismic events in the crust of a magnetar (a neutron star with a strong magnetic field approximately 1014 Gauss) which could produce short bursts of gravitational waves. [6] RIDGE PIPELINE When a GW passes through the detector, the output is formatted as a linear combination of the incident GW and additive detector noise. [2] The data produced by the detectors is related to the GW signal by: X = A x h + n X : data given by multiple detectors A : calculated by (1) the angle of location of supposed SGR and (2) the frequency of GW h : supposed signal of GW n : noises estimated by data conditioning The RIDGE pipeline is a coherent network analysis pipeline meaning that it combines the data from a network of detectors and searches for a common signal. It is implemented in MATLAB and uses the method of maximum likelihood with Tikhonov regularization. [3] What is maximum likelihood of a GW signal? Basically it uses the method of least squares to find the h that minimizes the following equation: L(h) = || X – A*h ||2 However, simply ensuring a signal that agrees with the data also causes fitting to the noise., thus Tikhonov regularization is employed. An extra term is added which penalizes overfitting: L(h) = || X – A*h ||2 + hT *Ω*h where Ω is a Lagrange parameter which is chosen to balance between being true to the data and avoiding fitting the noise. [4] RIDGE calculates the likelihood over a grid of sky locations, using the detector response A appropriate for each location. The set of values of likelihood at these sky locations is called a sky-map. A sky-map calculated for simulated LIGO data with no signal present and a sky-map that includes a simulated signal will show a significant difference in their patterns. Two different statistics are calculated based on the changes in the sky-map: (1) Rrad : the difference between the baseline map and each time segment map and (2) Rmm : the correlation between the baseline map and each time segment map: (1) (2) where and ; S(θ,φ) is the maximum likelihood value at each sky position; [max/min]S(θ,φ) represents [max/min] value of S(θ,φ); and (θ,φ) is the collection average of the points of sky-maps that do not have any GW signals [2]. RESULTS 2000 seconds of simulated signals with central frequencies equal to oscillation frequencies observed in X-rays produced by SGR 1806-20 (the burst that occurred on Dec 1, 2005 at 09:58:40 UTC), were analyzed with a simulated noise baseline (similar to that of LIGO) to assess the applicability of the RIDGE pipeline in searching for GWs from magnetars. The added signals were circularly polarized sine gaussians with three different central frequencies: 92.9 Hz, 625.5 Hz, and 1837 Hz. that were added with a magnitude scaled such that the hRSS was 10-21. The lower frequency 92.9 Hz lies within the most sensitive range of LIGO (simulated signal at 92.9 Hz with 10x the hRSS was processed to provide more visually contrasting outputs). The hRSS is strain root sum of squares and is defined as: Σ( h+i + h×i )1/2 / fs , where h+i is the plus polarization; h×i is the cross polarization of each element i; and fs is the sampling frequency. [2] ====================== Sky-maps: Detection Statistic Plots of simulated signal at 92.9 Hz (hRSS = 10-20): Detection probability curves when the hRSS is at 10-21 and also at 10-22. METHODOLOGY This project is an assessment of RIDGE in its ability to help detect potential GW signals. Upon receiving data from a network, RIDGE analyzes manually selected data sections specified by input parameters (which must be carefully chosen). For example, parameters such as data length and frequency range must be selected that will provide RIDGE with an appropriate data set to filter potential GW detections from stationary and transient noise. The purpose of RIDGE is to reduce the chance of generating false alarms and at the same time, increase the signal-to-noise ratio by combining the data streams coherently. 1 2 http://phys.utb.edu/~kazu/RIDGE/flowchart/index.html MAGNETARS There are many different types of astronomical GW sources that theoretically can be detected: but this research project involves the specific category of soft γ-ray repeaters and anomalous X-ray pulsars, which are produced by a par- ticular type of celestial body called a magnetar. Magnetars are neutron stars with tremendously powerful magnetic fields. The magnetic field within it is not static, but dynamic which retards the star’s spin frequency and induces cracks (seismic events) along the crust that in turn, release extraordinary amounts of electromagnetic radiation bursts usually in the frequency range of X-rays and γ-rays and in addition, may produce short bursts of GWs. [6,7] (Recently, an observation of a magnetar-like emission from a young pulsar shows that the magnetic and rotational thresholds to produce this sort of emission can be lowered through unique behavior of flux and timing. [5]) This research project will simulate data based upon the magnetar SGR 1806-20 to examine the applicability of RIDGE. SEQUENCE OF A MAGNETAR BURST [6]: Off – source Potential signal present: (1) at 92.9 Hz, (hRSS = 10-21) (2) at 92.9 Hz (hRSS = 10-20) http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/mag_pix/still-1-final.jpg Rrad Rmm Plot of: Rmm vs. Rrad http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html REFERENCES [1] LIGO DCC G070102-00 [2] K Hayama, S D Mohanty, M Rakhmanov, S Desai “Coherent network analysis for triggered gravitational wave burst searches” (2007) [3] Mohanty, S.D. “RIDGE: Status and Analysis Plan” (presentation) [4] M Rakhmanov “Rank deficiency and Tikhonov regularization in the inverse problem for gravitational wave bursts” (2006) [5] F. P. Gavriil, M. E. Gonzalez, E. V. Gotthelf, V. M. Caspi, M. A. Livingstone, P. M. Woods “Magentar-like Emission from the Young Pulsar in Kes 75” [6] http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html [7] http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast20may98_1.htm hRSS = 10-21 hRSS = 10-22 CONCLUSION Based on the detection probability curves, it is shown that the two statistics that RIDGE uses (Rrad and Rmm) are effective in differentiating potential GW signals from the noise. When the hRSS is at 10-21(which is the highest value we can likely expect from a GW), RIDGE is 100% successful in this differentiation at the lower frequency, nearly so for the middle frequency, and to a lesser degree for the higher frequency. Even when the hRSS is 10 times weaker (equal to 10-22), RIDGE can distinguish a signal near 100 Hz. [1]