The Role of Data Quality in S5 Burst Analyses Lindy Blackburn 1 for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A walk through some statistic details of LSC results.
Advertisements

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.
GWDAW, Dec 2003 Shawhan, Christensen, Gonzalez1 LIGO Inspiral Veto Studies Peter Shawhan (LIGO Lab / Caltech) Nelson Christensen (Carleton College) Gabriela.
Abstract We present the application of Support Vector Machines (SVM) toward identification of noise transients in gravitational-wave analysis. SVM is a.
LIGO-G Z Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates Laura Cadonati Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Systematic effects in gravitational-wave data analysis
G Z April 2007 APS Meeting - DAP GGR Gravitational Wave AstronomyKeith Thorne Coincidence-based LIGO GW Burst Searches and Astrophysical Interpretation.
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.
Data Characterization in Gravitational Waves Soma Mukherjee Max Planck Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik Golm, Germany. Talk at University of Texas, Brownsville.
LIGO-G Z LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Upper Limits on the Rate of Gravitational Wave Bursts from the First LIGO Science Run Edward Daw Louisiana.
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.
GWDAW12, Dec , Cambridge MA1 Detection Confidence Tests for Burst and Inspiral Candidate Events Romain Gouaty *, for the LSC and the Virgo Collaboration.
LIGO-G Z The AURIGA-LIGO Joint Burst Search L. Cadonati, G. Prodi, L. Baggio, S. Heng, W. Johnson, A. Mion, S. Poggi, A. Ortolan, F. Salemi, P.
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.
A High Frequency Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts In the 1 st Year of LIGO’s 5 th Science Run LIGO consists of 3 laser interferometers at 2 sites:
Abstract: We completed the tuning of the analysis procedures of the AURIGA-LIGO joint burst search and we are in the process of verifying our results.
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)
LSC glitch group report Shourov K. Chatterji for the LSC glitch group LSC/Virgo meeting 2007 October 24 Hannover, Germany LIGO-G Z.
Veto Selection for Gravitational Wave Event Searches Erik Katsavounidis 1 and Peter Shawhan 2 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139,
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.
LIGO-G Z Results of the LIGO-TAMA S2/DT8 Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.
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.
LIGO-G Data Analysis Techniques for LIGO Laura Cadonati, M.I.T. Trento, March 1-2, 2007.
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 v5 5/2/09Joshua Smith, Syracuse University1 Low-latency search for gravitational-wave transients with electromagnetic follow-up Joshua Smith,
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.
May 29, 2006 GWADW, Elba, May 27 - June 21 LIGO-G0200XX-00-M Data Quality Monitoring at LIGO John Zweizig LIGO / Caltech.
S.Klimenko, G Z, March 20, 2006, LSC meeting First results from the likelihood pipeline S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), A.Mercer (UF),G.Mitselmakher.
LIGO-G Z Confidence Test for Waveform Consistency of LIGO Burst Candidate Events Laura Cadonati LIGO Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
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.
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.
S5 First Epoch BNS Inspiral Results Drew Keppel 1 representing the Inspiral Group 1 California Institute of Technology Nov LSC Meeting MIT, 4 November.
Igor Yakushin, December 2004, GWDAW-9 LIGO-G Z Status of the untriggered burst search in S3 LIGO data Igor Yakushin (LIGO Livingston Observatory)
LSC at LHO LIGO Scientific Collaboration - University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee 1 LIGO-1 Analysis Wrap-up: Alan Wiseman University of Wisconsin.
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.
Abstract: We completed the tuning of the analysis procedures of the AURIGA-LIGO joint burst search and we are in the process of verifying our results.
LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.
24 th Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting, Santa Barbara LIGO DCC Number: G Z 1 Search for gravitational waves from inspiraling high-mass (non-spinning)
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.
Online all-sky burst searches during the joint S6/VSR2 LIGO-Virgo science run Igor Yakushin LIGO Livingston Observatory, Caltech For the LIGO Scientific.
Search for gravitational waves from binary inspirals in S3 and S4 LIGO data. Thomas Cokelaer on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Thomas Cokelaer for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Cardiff University, U.K. APS April Meeting, Jacksonville, FL 16 April 2007, LIGO-G Z Search.
Brennan Hughey MIT Kavli Institute Postdoc Symposium
Methods and Milestones
All-Sky Burst Searches for Gravitational Waves at High Frequencies
The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO
Igor Yakushin, LIGO Livingston Observatory
LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting
GW150914: The first direct detection of gravitational waves
S3 Glitch Updates Laura Cadonati
Coherent detection and reconstruction
Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates
Presentation transcript:

The Role of Data Quality in S5 Burst Analyses Lindy Blackburn 1 for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA 1: Overview Data Quality (DQ) flags identify epochs in Science data which may have a negative impact on the analyses due to errors in data acquisition, poor sensitivity, excessive contribution to the false event rate, or general untrustworthiness of data. The intervals constructed target known problems with the instrument or environmental conditions. Individual Data Quality flags are evaluated by their effectiveness at removing single-interferometer and coincident noise transients, particularly the loudest ones, from the gravitational-wave data streams. To make sure Data Quality flags remain independent of the presence of a true gravitational wave, we check that they are not triggered by hardware injections. The LSC burst group, like the inspiral group 1, makes use of tiered system of Data Quality flags which are applied depending on the type of analysis. 2: Data Quality Categories Category 1 Obvious Data Quality cuts. These times are not processed by the search pipelines. (e.g. calibration problems, test injections, photodiode saturations) Category 2 “Unconditional” post-processing cuts: data is unreliable and there is an established one-on-one correlation with loud transients. (e.g. saturations in the alignment control system, glitches in the power mains) Category 3 “Conditional” post-processing cuts, for upper limit: statistical correlation to loud transients. We may still look for detection candidates at these times, exerting caution when establishing detection confidence. (e.g. train/seismic flags, 1 minute pre-lock-loss, “dips” of light stored in the arm cavities) Category 4 Advisory flags: no clear evidence of direct correlation to loud transients, but if we find a detection candidate at these times, we need to exert caution (e.g. high wind and certain data validation issues) 3: Data Quality Performance Data Quality flags are selected for use by the burst analysis based on their effectiveness at removing non-Gaussian transients from the data while minimally effecting the live-time of the search. Each set of flags is tested over single-interferometer transients found using kleineWelle 2 as well as a sample of time-shifted triple-coincident background events from WaveBurst 3 with CorrPower 4 follow-up. Single- interferometer analysis provides the best statistics and a clear picture of what happens at each instrument, while the time-shifted coincident analysis preferentially targets the sources of background that should appear in the real search. Data Quality applied (after Category 1) H1 Data Quality flags counts versus threshold H2 Data Quality flags counts versus threshold L1 Data Quality flags counts versus threshold Category 2: saturations in the alignment control system severe impulsive glitches in the power mains uncertain calibration large glitches in the thermal compensation system Category 3 (no overlap in time with Category 2): 120s prior to lock-loss noise in power mains transient drop in light stored in arm cavities times when one Hanford instrument is unlocked very poor sensitivity severe seismic activity or wind speed earthquakes and hurricanes 4: Summary and Future Plans Data Quality plays a critical role in making sure the background distribution for the burst analysis is well behaved and that a small amount of livetime does not ruin an upper limit or the confidence of a real event. With a long run such as S5, which included various periods of commissioning, there is an ongoing effort to understand the evolution of data quality issues throughout the run, and apply data quality cuts tailored to the specific state of the instrument at a given time. Also new data quality flags are continually being developed and tested. 1 See accompanying GWDAW12 poster by Jake Slutsky, Data Quality and Vetoes for the CBC analysis in LIGO’s 5 th Science Run 2 kleineWelle identifies excess signal power in the wavelet domain of a whitened data stream. It is used by the burst and inspiral analysis groups to find transients in the gravitational-wave and auxiliary data streams for data quality and veto work, and for general detector characterization, see: L. Blackburn, kleineWelle technical documentation, 3, 4 Waveburst identifies coincident and consistent excess power in the wavelet domain across a set of gravitational-wave data streams. CorrPower is a cross-correlation based test for waveform consistency which has been used to ultimately rank events by significance (Г) of the correlation in the burst analyses. Waveburst+CorrPower has been used for the LIGO S2, S3, and S4 burst upper limit searches., see: LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Search for gravitational-wave bursts in LIGO data from the fourth science run, Class. Quantum Grav. 24 (2007) (arXiv:gr-qc/ ) Waveburst+CorrPower time-shifted events (sample) Single-interferometer kleineWelle triggers DeadTime: 20695/ = 0.1% Significance > / = 0.2% Significance > / = 2.4% Significance > / = 4.1% Significance > / = 7.1% Significance > / 2752 = 14.5% DeadTime: 11604/ = 0.1% Significance > 2 69/ = 0.2% Significance > 3 22/ 8652 = 0.3% Significance > 4 10/ 819 = 1.2% Significance > 5 8/ 85 = 9.4% Waveburst+CorrPower time-shifted events (sample) Single-interferometer kleineWelle triggers DeadTime: / = 3.9% Significance > / = 5.0% Significance > / = 10.9% Significance > / = 12.1% Significance > / = 12.5% Significance > / 2752 = 13.8% DeadTime: / = 3.6% Significance > / = 5.3% Significance > 3 511/ 8652 = 5.9% Significance > 4 55/ 819 = 6.7% Significance > 5 7/ 85 = 8.2% Waveburst+CorrPower time-shifted events (sample) Single-interferometer kleineWelle triggers DeadTime: 45573/ = 0.2% Significance > / = 0.4% Significance > / = 6.1% Significance > / = 7.2% Significance > / 9415 = 7.7% Significance > / 1519 = 25.1% DeadTime: 29159/ = 0.2% Significance > 2 113/ = 0.4% Significance > 3 40/ 8652 = 0.5% Significance > 4 11/ 819 = 1.3% Significance > 5 8/ 85 = 9.4% Waveburst+CorrPower time-shifted events (sample) Single-interferometer kleineWelle triggers DeadTime: / = 1.1% Significance > / = 3.8% Significance > / = 12.8% Significance > / = 14.5% Significance > / = 19.5% Significance > / 3037 = 31.4% DeadTime: / = 1.2% Significance > / = 5.9% Significance > 3 593/ 8649 = 6.9% Significance > 4 92/ 820 = 11.2% Significance > 5 17/ 85 = 20.0% Waveburst+CorrPower time-shifted events (sample) Single-interferometer kleineWelle triggers DeadTime: / = 1.2% Significance > / = 1.7% Significance > / = 2.1% Significance > / = 2.1% Significance > / 9415 = 2.4% Significance > / 1519 = 1.4% DeadTime: / = 1.2% Significance > 2 557/ = 1.9% Significance > 3 179/ 8652 = 2.1% Significance > 4 26/ 819 = 3.2% Significance > 5 6/ 85 = 7.1% Waveburst+CorrPower time-shifted events (sample) Single-interferometer kleineWelle triggers DeadTime: / = 5.9% Significance > / = 11.3% Significance > / = 18.5% Significance > / = 18.7% Significance > / = 20.1% Significance > / 3037 = 24.3% DeadTime: / = 5.6% Significance > / = 8.6% Significance > 3 867/ 8649 = 10.0% Significance > 4 100/ 820 = 12.2% Significance > 5 12/ 85 = 14.1% LIGO Document G Z