Yuta Michimura Department of Physics, University of Tokyo

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

LIGO - Fermi Sub-Threshold Search for the 1 st Advanced LIGO Science Run Jordan Camp NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Moriond Gravitation Meeting March.

Advertisements

Inspiral Parameter Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Methods Nelson Christensen Carleton College LIGO-G Z.

Exploring the Stellar Populations of Early-Type Galaxies in the 6dF Galaxy Survey Philip Lah Honours Student h Supervisors: Matthew Colless Heath Jones.

The Strongly Relativistic Double Pulsar and LISA Vicky Kalogera Physics & Astronomy Dept with Chunglee Kim (NU) Duncan Lorimer (Manchester)

Parameter Estimation Using 3.5 post-Newtonian Inspiral Waveforms GWDAW, December 15-18, 2004, Annecy K. Arun, B.R. Iyer, B.S. Sathyaprakash and P. Sundarajan.

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.

Mock Data Production, Characteristics, and Confusion Background WG4 f2f – Nice 09/01/10 Tania Regimbau.

Cosmological studies with Weak Lensing Peak statistics Zuhui Fan Dept. of Astronomy, Peking University.

Koji Arai – LIGO Laboratory / Caltech LIGO-G v1.

Precession during merger R. O’Shaughnessy (UWM) J. Healy, L. London, D. Shoemaker (Georgia Tech) Midwest Relativity Meeting, Chicago arXiv:

1SBPI 16/06/2009 Heterodyne detection with LISA for gravitational waves parameters estimation Nicolas Douillet.

LIGO-G Z Coherent Analysis of Signals from Misaligned Interferometers M. Rakhmanov, S. Klimenko Department of Physics, University of Florida,

The Effect of Higher Harmonic Corrections on Non-Spinning Massive BH Binaries for LISA. Ed Porter (AEI) & Neil Cornish (MSU)

Searching for Gravitational Waves with LIGO Andrés C. Rodríguez Louisiana State University on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration SACNAS

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,

S.Klimenko, December 16, 2007, GWDAW12, Boston, LIGO-G Z Coherent burst searches for gravitational waves from compact binary objects S.Klimenko,

Gamma ray burst triggered searches in the S2, S3, S4 runs of LIGO Soumya D. Mohanty On behalf of the LIGO Science Collaboration.

Applying Numerical Relativity and EOB to Black Hole Binary Observation Sean McWilliams NASA Goddard Space Flight Center University of Maryland Collaborators:

COMPARISON OF PARAMETER ESTIMATION BETWEEN ET-B AND ET-C SENSITIVITIES Tjonnie Li (Nikhef) 2 September ET F2F, Nice.

Chapter 6 Conducting & Reading Research Baumgartner et al Chapter 6 Selection of Research Participants: Sampling Procedures.

Newtonian Noise Mitigation with Tensor Gravitational Wave Detector

Joint LIGO-Virgo data analysis Inspiral and Burst Summary of the first project results Overview of the future activities M.-A. Bizouard (LAL-Orsay) on.

APS meeting, Dallas 22/04/06 1 A search for gravitational wave signals from known pulsars using early data from the LIGO S5 run Matthew Pitkin on behalf.

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.

Bose, APS-Denver, 2008/05/04 Estimating the parameters of coalescing black hole binaries (non-spinning) using ground-based detectors Sukanta Bose Washington.

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

G v1Heterogeneous Detector Networks1 Heterogeneous Detector Networks Sky Localization with 3G Detectors May 26, 2016 Daniel Sigg LIGO Hanford Observatory.

Capitalizing on GW polarization bias

Detecting a Galactic Supernova with H2 or GEO

Possible KAGRA Upgrades

KAGRA+ Upgrade Plans Yuta Michimura1, Kentaro Komori1

Summary of iKAGRA Test Run Apr 11-25, 2016

Igor Yakushin, LIGO Livingston Observatory

An improved method for estimating the efficiency of GW detectors

On recent detection of a gravitational wave from double neutron stars

KAGRA+ Upgrade Plans Yuta Michimura1, Kentaro Komori1

Possible KAGRA Upgrades

Possibility of Upgrading KAGRA

M.-A. Bizouard, F. Cavalier

Interferometer Design for bKAGRA Phase 1 and Beyond

Arm Length Stabilization Conceptual Configuration

Arm Length Stabilization Conceptual Configuration

KAGRA+ Upgrade Plans Yuta Michimura1, Kentaro Komori1

The arrival of Gravitational Waves and the EEE network:

LISA Data Analysis & Sources

Possible KAGRA Upgrades

KAGRA+ Upgrade Plans Yuta Michimura1, Kentaro Komori1

Interferometer Design for bKAGRA Phase 1 and Beyond

Search for gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers:

OK Alexander Dietz Louisiana State University

Interferometer Design for bKAGRA Phase 1 and Beyond

Interferometer Design for bKAGRA Phase 1 and Beyond

Summary of Issues for KAGRA+

Interferometer Design for bKAGRA Phase 1 and Beyond

Inspiral Hardware Injections

Summary of the iKAGRA Run

K.Somiya Detection of blackhole ringdown signals

Gravitational radiation from known radio pulsars using LIGO data

Interferometer Design for bKAGRA Phase 1 and Beyond

Beam Propagation for bKAGRA Phase 1 with flat ETMs

CALET-CALによるガンマ線観測初期解析

Intensity Stabilization Servo Plan

Yuta Michimura Department of Physics, University of Tokyo

Intensity Stabilization Servo Plan

Arm Length Stabilization Conceptual Configuration

Fig. 3. Effect of substrate orientation on growth rate for bottom-dwelling tadpoles with similar oral configuration. Effect of substrate orientation on.

Fig. 1 Comparison of earthquake detection methods in terms of three qualitative metrics: Detection sensitivity, general applicability, and computational.

Presentation transcript:

Yuta Michimura Department of Physics, University of Tokyo March 19, 2018 O3 Sky Localization Calculation Comparison between MCMC and Fisher Analysis Yuta Michimura Department of Physics, University of Tokyo

Network Configuration and Source Network sensitivity aLIGO: Late Low (116 Mpc) LIGO-P1200087 AdV: Mid Low (63 Mpc) LIGO-P1200087 KAGRA: O3-40 (42 Mpc) JGW-T1707556 Source parameters (GW170817-like) masses: 1.5-1.24 Msun redshift: z= 0.009 (~40 Mpc) inclination angle: 30 deg polarization angle: 0 deg no spins Source locations (192 locations) see Haino-san’s list: dst-3102.txt

Calculation Method Comparison S. Haino (see JGW-G1807674, JGW-G1808042) Nested sampling with MCMC TaylorF2 Y. Michimura et al. Fisher analysis PhenomD (PRD 93 044007 (2016)) ONLY INSPIRAL

1σ Sky Localization Comparison

1σ Sky Localization Comparison Agreed within x2 Haino-san’s result is 9 +/- 2 % smaller than Fisher result Network SNRs by Haino-san is 12 +/- 2 % higher (probably because YM+ uses only inspiral waveform) and this should give 22 +/- 4 % difference in the sky localization error Sounds reasonable

Discussion Fisher analysis assumes that SNR is high enough But there seems no correlation between SNR and sky localization error difference Still under investigation

Map Comparison NOTE that color bars are not exactly the same! Similar pattern, but different by YM+ (multiplied by 2.1 to show 90% C.L.) smap-3101.png by S. Haino (http://www.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~haino/gsim/gsim.html) smap-3102.png