E12 Report from the Burst Group Burst Analysis Group and the Glitch Investigation Team.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Stefan Hild S4 Data Workshop, Hannover, May 2005 Title 1 kHz Glitches in S4 Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut)

Advertisements

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

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.

Initial results of burst signal injections into a GEO burst search pipeline Indentify clusters of TF pixels Frame data from IFO Calculate time- frequency.

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.

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.

LIGO-G Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.

S.Klimenko, G Z, December 21, 2006, GWDAW11 Coherent detection and reconstruction of burst events in S5 data S.Klimenko, University of Florida.

3 May 2011 VESF DA schoolD. Verkindt 1 Didier Verkindt Virgo-LAPP CNRS - Université de Savoie VESF Data Analysis School Data Quality and vetos.

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.

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.

The Analysis of Binary Inspiral Signals in LIGO Data Jun-Qi Guo Sept.25, 2007 Department of Physics and Astronomy The University of Mississippi LIGO Scientific.

Glitch Group S5 Activities Laura Cadonati for the Glitch Working Group LSC meeting, Hanford March 21, 2006 G Z.

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)

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.

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.

Status of coalescing binaries search activities in Virgo GWDAW 11 Status of coalescing binaries search activities in Virgo GWDAW Dec 2006 Leone.

Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

HACR at Virgo: implementation and results Gabriele Vajente 12 th ILIAS WG1 meeting Geneva, March 29 th -30 th 2007.

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, August 2003, Hannover LIGO-G Z How optimal are wavelet TF methods? S.Klimenko l Introduction l Time-Frequency analysis l Comparison.

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 D Experimental Upper Limit from LIGO on the Gravitational Waves from GRB Stan Whitcomb For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Informal.

1 Laura Cadonati, MIT For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS meeting Tampa, FL April 16, 2005 LIGO Hanford ObservatoryLIGO Livingston Observatory New.

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.

S.Klimenko, LSC, August 2004, G Z BurstMon S.Klimenko, A.Sazonov University of Florida l motivation & documentation l description & results l.

Coherent network analysis technique for discriminating GW bursts from instrumental noise Patrick Sutton (CIT) in collaboration with Shourov Chatterji,

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.

S.Klimenko, March 2003, LSC Burst Analysis in Wavelet Domain for multiple interferometers LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko University of Florida l Analysis.

A Comparison of Burst Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms for LIGO Amber L. Stuver Center for Gravitational Wave Physics Penn State University.

S.Klimenko, December 2003, GWDAW Burst detection method in wavelet domain (WaveBurst) S.Klimenko, G.Mitselmakher University of Florida l Wavelets l Time-Frequency.

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.

Peter Shawhan The University of Maryland & The LIGO Scientific Collaboration Penn State CGWP Seminar March 27, 2007 LIGO-G Z Reaching for Gravitational.

LSC meeting – Mar05 Livingston, LA A. Di Credico Syracuse University Glitch investigations with kleineWelle Reporting on work done by several people: L.

Detector Characterisation and Optimisation David Robertson University of Glasgow.

LIGO-G Z TFClusters Tuning for the LIGO-TAMA Search Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech.

S.Klimenko, LSC, Marcht 2005, G Z BurstMon diagnostic of detector noise during S4 run S.Klimenko University of Florida l burstMon FOMs l S4 run.

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 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 Peter Shawhan, for the LSC Burst Analysis Group LSC Observational Results Meeting November 4, 2006 The S4 LIGO All-Sky Burst Search.

November, 2009 STAC - Data Analysis Report 1 Data Analysis report November, 2009 Gianluca M Guidi Università di Urbino and INFN Firenze for the Virgo Collaboration.

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

LIGO-G05????-00-Z Detector characterization for LIGO burst searches Shourov K. Chatterji For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 10 th Gravitational Wave.

LIGO-G Z Results from LIGO Observations Stephen Fairhurst University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

Data Analysis report November, 2009 Gianluca M Guidi

Inspiral Glitch Veto Studies

The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO

S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati

Coherent detection and reconstruction

WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans

S2/S3 Glitch Investigation Update

Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates

Burst Figure of Merit Julien Sylvestre LSC Meeting, March 2004

S2 Bilinear Couplings Study

Presentation transcript:

E12 Report from the Burst Group Burst Analysis Group and the Glitch Investigation Team

Tools and Methods

BurstMon: Control-Room Figures of Merit Using injected signals (sine-gaussians Q=9 F=100, 235, 555 Hz) »Minimum detectable signal amplitude for 1% black pixel probability and 1 Hz false rate »The ratio hrss_min/noise is a measure of how glitches affect the burst search »for gaussian data, expect ratio~4 Fraction of pixels in clusters of size > N »large fraction is associated to strong glitches that will affect the burst search. »for gaussian data: N=2, fraction=0.13 N=4, fraction=0.05 Variability »ratio of "instantaneous" (fraction of a second) to average (minutes) noise RMS. »for “good” data, expect v=1 Properties of loudest trigger in each minute »Time, Frequency, SNR »could be used for “quick” diagnostics and veto studies of loudest glitches For trend plots and histograms over E12 at L1, H1, H2, see:

100 Hz 235 Hz 555 Hz L1 during E12 science segments longer than 1800 sec

H1 during E12 science segments longer than 1800 sec – starting Friday 8 UTC

Friday morning at L1 this FOM is sensitive to trains! fraction of pixels in clusters with size >2 LVEA seismometers (STS2_X and Y)

Trigger Analysis Excess Power ( »on AS_Q, up to 1 kHz KleineWelle ( »on AS_Q, AS_I, AS_AC, MICH_CTRL, PRC_CTRL, POB_Q, REFL_Q, WFS1_QP, WFS2_QP, up to 1 kHz WaveBurst ( »on AS_Q, up to 2 kHz For diagnostic plots and veto studies over E12 at L1, H1, H2, see:

Results

L1 Detectable burst amplitude: strain/sqrt(Hz) Ratio FOM: 6-7 at 100, 235 Hz 5 at 555 Hz – stable during E12 pixel fraction FOM, N=2: ~0.4 (0.13 for gaussian noise) Variability: significant improvement from S3 but still detector shows a lot of noise non-stationarity. S3 E12

L1 KleineWelle BurstMon autocorrelation scale=10 s bumps at ~20, 40 sec 0.1 Hz noise? Dominant trigger frequency: Hz. Also, high frequency phase noise Frequency of most significant trigger Autocorrelation time [s]

Early Veto Candidates KleineWelle triggers with Significance>100 (non-gaussian tail in event histogram  all tested channels exhibit correlations. PRC_CTRL has ~30% veto efficiency WFS1_QP PRC_CTRL glitches in high 1-3 Hz seismic noise

H1 Detectable burst amplitude: strain/sqrt(Hz) Ratio FOM: 6-12 at 100, 235 Hz 4-6 at 555 Hz – large excursions pixel fraction FOM, N=2: often ~1 (glitches!!!!) Variability: significant improvement from S3 (similar to E11) E12 S3

H1 KleineWelle BurstMon autocorrelation scale=1 s (note: both H1 and H2 are required to be in science mode) Dominant trigger frequency: 250 Hz (known resonance in the TCS) Power start analysis: Feb 4, 8 UTC Frequency of most significant trigger time [s]

H2 Detectable burst amplitude: strain/sqrt(Hz) Ratio FOM: 6 at 100, 235 Hz 4.5 at 555 Hz – stable pixel fraction FOM, N=2: large excursions Variability: significant improvement from S3 (similar to E11) E12 S3

H2 KleineWelle WaveBurst autocorrelation scale=2 and 5 s (note: both H1 and H2 are required to be in science mode) Dominant trigger frequency: 950 Hz Power start analysis: Feb 4, 8 UTC Power

Conclusion The BurstMon ratio FOM quantifies how the sensitivity of the burst pipeline is affected by glitches »FOMs relatively stable at L1, excursions at H2 Variability improved since S3 Transients at L1 associated to seismic noise (1-3Hz) and to phase noise in the 1.5-2kHz range Features at H1 have the largest impact on the burst analysis: »large excursions of all figures of merit during E12 »1 sec periodicity »250 Hz