LIGO- G030479-00-Z LSC ASIS Meeting 2003.03.20LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 S2 Hardware Pulsar Injections Bruce.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
LIGO-G Z 1 S2/E10 pulsar injection analysis Réjean Dupuis University of Glasgow 13 November 2003 LSC Meeting, LHO.
Advertisements

Pulsar Detection and Parameter Estimation with MCMC - Six Parameters Nelson Christensen Physics and Astronomy Carleton College GWDAW December 2003.
LIGO-G Z Results from LIGO’s second science run: a search for continuous gravitational waves Michael Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory California.
The search for continuous gravitational waves: analyses from LIGO’s second science run Michael Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory on behalf of the LIGO.
1 Status of Unbiased Search for Continuous-Wave Sources Dave Chin, Vladimir Dergachev, Keith Riles (University of Michigan) LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Searching for pulsars using the Hough transform Badri Krishnan AEI, Golm (for the pulsar group) LSC meeting, Hanford November 2003 LIGO-G Z.
1 Status of Power-Flux * Search for Continuous-Wave Sources Dave Chin, Vladimir Dergachev, Keith Riles (University of Michigan) LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
ALLEGRO G Z LSC, Livingston 23 March, Calibration for the ALLEGRO resonant detector -- S2 and S4 Martin McHugh, Loyola University New Orleans.
Brennan Ireland Rochester Institute of Technology Astrophysical Sciences and Technology December 5, 2013 LIGO: Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave.
Hardware injection of continuous gravitational wave signals at GEO600 U. Weiland, G. Heinzel and the GEO600 team References P. Jaranowski, A. Królak, B.
LSC Meeting, 17 March 2004 Shawhan, Marka, et al.LIGO-G E Summary of E10 / S3 Hardware Signal Injections Peter Shawhan, Szabolcs Márka, Bruce.
LIGO Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee LIGO-G Z SuperComputing 2003 grid-distributed wide-area.
Systematic effects in gravitational-wave data analysis
LIGO- XXX Bruce Allen, LSC Talk LIGO Scientific Collaboration - U. Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 Effects of Timing Errors and Timing Offsets in Pulsar.
Searching for gravitational radiation from Scorpius X-1: Limits from the second LIGO science run Alberto Vecchio on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
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 Z LIGO Scientific Collaboration -- UWM 1 LSC Data Analysis Alan G. Wiseman (LSC Software Coordinator) LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
LIGO-G Z GWDAW10, December 16, S3 Final Results Bruce Allen, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
10/06/2003LSC WIDE COLLOQUIUM1 LSC Pulsar Group and P Shawhan, S Marka, and S Koranda presented by B Allen, R Dupuis, N Christensen, and X Siemens S2 Hardware.
GWDAW-8 December 18, 2003LIGO Scientific Collaboration, UW - Milwaukee 1LIGO-G Z Broad-band CW searches (for isolated pulsars) in LIGO and GEO.
LSC Meeting, 19 March 2003 Shawhan, Leonor, MarkaLIGO-G D Introduction to Hardware Signal Injections Peter Shawhan, Isabel Leonor, Szabi Márka.
LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee LIGO-G Z E10/S3 Hardware Pulsar Injections Bruce.
LIGO-G Z LSC Nov 5, Bruce Allen, U. Wisconsin - Milwaukee and AEI
Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
G Z Test Mass Butterfly Modes and Alignment Amber Bullington, Stanford University Warren Johnson, Louisiana State University LIGO Livingston Detector.
LIGO- G D Gravitational Wave Observations with Interferometers: Results and Prospects Stan Whitcomb for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 2 nd.
Martin Hewitson and the GEO team Measuring gravitational waves with GEO600.
LIGO-G E1 Reviewer Report for the S2 Time-Domain Pulsar Search Teviet Creighton, Andri Gretarsson, Fred Raab, B. Sathyaprakash, Peter Shawhan.
S.Klimenko, LSC, August 2004, G Z BurstMon S.Klimenko, A.Sazonov University of Florida l motivation & documentation l description & results l.
LIGO-G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 Update on November 2003 grid-distributed.
LIGO-G Z 1 Setting upper limits on the strength of periodic GWs using the first science data from the LIGO and GEO detectors Bruce Allen, University.
1 Unbiased All-Sky Search (Michigan) [as of August 17, 2003] [ D. Chin, V. Dergachev, K. Riles ] Analysis Strategy: (Quick review) Measure power in selected.
15-18 December 2004 GWDAW-9 Annecy 1 All-Sky broad band search for continuous waves using LIGO S2 data Yousuke Itoh 1 for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
LIGO- G Z AJW, Caltech, LIGO Project1 First look at Injection of Burst Waveforms prior to S1 Alan Weinstein Caltech Burst UL WG LSC meeting, 8/21/02.
LSC at LLO LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 Report from Executive Committee Meeting Alan Wiseman G Z.
LIGO-G Z Detector Characterization Summary K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Summary of the Detector Characterization Sessions Keith.
1 Work of the LSC Pulsar Upper Limits Group (PULG) Graham Woan, University of Glasgow on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration GWDAW 2003.
LIGO-G Z Peter Shawhan (University of Maryland) for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Special thanks to Michael Landry and Bruce Allen Eastern.
LSC at LHO LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 Summary of LSC Data Analysis Activities: Alan Wiseman G Z.
LSC at LHO LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 LIGO-1 Analysis Wrap-up: Alan Wiseman University of Wisconsin.
LSC Z000.0 LSC at LLO LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 LSC Software Coordinator Report Alan Wiseman University.
All-sky LIGO Search for Periodic Gravitational Waves in the Fourth Science Run (S4) Keith Riles University of Michigan For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Xavier Siemens for the LSC University of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee
All-Sky broad band search for continuous waves using LIGO S2 data
ASIS Status Report Bruce Allen LSC Meeting, LHO, August 16, 2001
S4 Pulsar Search Results from PowerFlux
Searching for pulsars using the Hough transform
Sco-X1search : S2 results
GWDAW - 8 University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, December
S4 Pulsar Search Results from PowerFlux
Analysis of LIGO S2 data for GWs from isolated pulsars
Coherent wide parameter space searches for gravitational waves from neutron stars using LIGO S2 data Xavier Siemens, for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Overview of E10 / S3 Hardware Injections
A.M. Sintes for the pulgroup
S2/S3 calibration Gabriela González, Louisiana State University Plus
Broad-band CW searches in LIGO and GEO S2 and S3 data
Stochastic background search using LIGO Livingston and ALLEGRO
Broad-band CW searches in LIGO and GEO S2 and S3 data
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, UW - Milwaukee
S2 Inspiral Hardware Injections
Broad-band CW searches in LIGO and GEO S2 and S3 data
Excess power trigger generator
Towards the first coherent multi-ifo search for NS binaries in LIGO
First look at Injection of Burst Waveforms prior to S1
Update on LLO-ALLEGRO stochastic analysis
S2 Bilinear Couplings Study
ALLEGRO calibration for the LLO-ALLEGRO stochastic analysis
Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis
Gravitational radiation from known radio pulsars using LIGO data
Presentation transcript:

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 S2 Hardware Pulsar Injections Bruce Allen, for the pulsar group, and Peter Shawhan, Szabi Marka, Scott Koranda

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 2 Why Do Hardware Injections? Provides end-to-end validation of search code: »Gain confidence about tricky things like floating point dynamic range in filtering process »Helps algorithm/code developers in testing »Provide a fixed point of reference to return to Challenges in the pulsar case: »Realistic signals must last for hours (~10 7 cycles). This is unlike the burst (seconds) and inspiral (tens of seconds) case. »Would like to avoid the “SB” scenario where the simulated signal dominates the data »Getting the correct initial phase relationship at the different detector sites can be tricky (specifics later) Simpler in pulsar case: »Calibration: signal is at a “single” frequency

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 3 S2 Pulsar Injection Parameters Signal is sum of two different pulsars, P1 and P2 P1: Constant Intrinsic Frequency Sky position: lattitude (radians) longitude (radians) Signal parameters are defined at SSB GPS time which corresponds to a wavefront passing: LHO at GPS time LLO at GPS time In the SSB the signal is defined by f = Hz fdot = 0 phi = 0 A+ = 1.0 x Ax = 0 [equivalent to iota=pi/2] Note: At SSB GPS time (wavefront passing LLO at GPS time ) f is the same, because fdot=0, and phi= P2: Spinning Down Sky position: lattitude (radians) longitude (radians) Signal parameters are defined at SSB GPS time: SSB , which corresponds to a wavefront passing: LHO at GPS time LLO at GPS time In the SSB at that moment the signal is defined by f= fdot = [phase=2 pi (f dt+1/2 fdot dt^2+...)] phi = 0 A+ = 1.0 x Ax = 0 [equivalent to iota=pi/2] Note: at SSB GPS time a wavefront passes LLO at (slightly earlier) GPS time At this time the signal is defined by f = (slightly higher) phi = radians fdot, A+ and Ax are unchanged

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 4 What Are These Two Different SSB GPS times? P1: Constant Intrinsic Frequency Sky position: lattitude (radians) longitude (radians) Signal parameters are defined at SSB GPS time which corresponds to a wavefront passing: LHO at GPS time LLO at GPS time In the SSB the signal is defined by f = Hz fdot = 0 phi = 0 A+ = 1.0 x Ax = 0 [equivalent to iota=pi/2] Note: At SSB GPS time (wavefront passing LLO at GPS time ) f is the same, because fdot=0, and phi= #! /bin/bash bc -l << EOF scale=20 pi=4*a(1) f= phi=2*pi*( )*f Phi=phi+20*pi print "phi=", phi, "\n" EOF phi= Note that in an April 14 th Bruce didn’t notice that nsec had only 8 digits and incorrectly gave one of these times as

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 5 How was simulated signal made? 12 hours of strain data was produced (with overall normalization factor) using LAL routines: 144 files (5 minutes each) were produced. Each file contains 16384* byte IEEE 754 floats: »Key1234.5(4 bytes) »Sample 0xxxxxx(4 bytes) »Sample 1 yyyyyy(4 bytes) »… Time range was 00:00 –12:00 UTC April 10th The 2.8 GB of injection data was shipped to each site S2_pulsar_LHO_ dat S2_pulsar_LHO_ dat S2_pulsar_LHO_ dat … and so on.

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 6 Simulated strain: Detector Response Function April 10 th 04:00 UTC is: LHO: 8 pm April 9 th LLO: 10 pm April 9 th April 10 th 10:00 UTC is: LHO: 2 am April 10 th LLO: 4 am April 10 th simulated source is passing near a zero of the antenna pattern.

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 7 How and When? More than 9 hours of pulsar injections into L1, H1 and H2 »Start 18:19 PDT on April 9 »Stop 04:03 PDT on April 10 Instruments were in lock for almost the entire time Pulsar plus calibration line summed into DARM_CTRL ETM_X and ETM_Y used for other injections Strain/DARM_CTRL calibrations worked out at 1284 Hz, halfway between two signals. NOTE: THESE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED FOR H1 AND H2 – SO AT THOSE DETECTORS THE OVERALL STRAIN FACTOR WAS NOT 1.e-21! Injections started at (01:50:00 UTC April 10) and continued until (11:04:36 UTC April 10) with some minor interruptions (loss of lock, realignment, computer restarted because of lack of memory).

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 8 S2 Pulsar Hardware Injection Results for P1 (Time Domain Code) H1 L1 These plots show the probability density functions obtained for h0, iota, phi and psi using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method (N. Christensen, R. Dupuis, G. Woan). They are all SHARPLY PEAKED at the correct values of h0, psi and iota. They are also sharply peaked at the wrong value of phi – but the same wrong value in H1, H2, L1. This is probably due to a typo (Bruce’s fault) in an specifying the correct time origin for defining the phase. The injected signal has been detected (modulo typo) at the correct values of the parameters!

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 9 Still to do… A quick look was done using the Frequency Domain method (F-statistic) within a few days after the run. The signals were seen at approximately the correct amplitude in all three instruments The Frequency Domain searches need to be repeated more carefully and better documented. The Time-Domain method still needs to look for the non-zero fdot signal. We also need to verify that with correct choice of initial GPS time, phi is peaked at zero (BA is almost 100% confident about this).

LIGO- G Z LSC ASIS Meeting LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 10 What about S3? The pulgroup will try to provide a fast real-time function that can be called, which will return h(t). Perhaps this can be used to do longer-term injections during S3. Uta Weiland (GEO Hannover) is writing a routine for this purpose for GEO pulsar injections. I’d like to know what the LIGO experimenters need, please. Discussion item: should we do long-term injections (weeks/months) during S3?