Comparison of Line Removal Techniques Bernard F. Whiting University of Florida (LSC 7, Hanford, Aug. 2000)

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

E3/E4 Line Noise Investigation LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko Soma Mukherjee Bernard Whiting Bob Coldwell August 15, 2001 Outline  LLO line noise (E4.

Advertisements

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,

LIGO- G Z March 22, 2006March 2006 LSC Meeting - DetChar 1 S5 Spectral Line Catalogue Status Keith Thorne (PSU) for the Spectral Line Catalogue.

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

Noise Floor Non-stationarity Monitor Roberto Grosso*, Soma Mukherjee + + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernburg, Germany Detector.

Moving towards a hierarchical search. We now expand the coherent search to inspect a larger parameter space. (At the same time the incoherent stage is.

LIGO-G W Gregory Mendell and Mike Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory The StackSlide Search Summary: November 2003.

LIGO-G Z External Triggers Circulation only within LIGO I authorship list Status of the Triggered Burst Search (highlights from LIGO DCC# T Z,

8th February Delhi. Plan  Before IUCAA joining LSC: 1989 – 2000 Some significant contributions  IUCAA in the LSC: 2000 – 2010 Main contributions made.

LIGO-G W Gregory Mendell, LIGO Hanford Observatory on behalf of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Stackslide search for continuous gravitational.

LIGO-G DM. Landry – Amaldi5 July 9, 2003 Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory Monitoring LIGO Data During the S2 Science Run Michael.

UF S.Klimenko LIGO-G Z l Introduction l Goals of this analysis l Coherence of power monitors l Sign X-Correlation l H2-L1 x-correlation l Conclusion.

1/25 Current results and future scenarios for gravitational wave’s stochastic background G. Cella – INFN sez. Pisa.

New data analysis for AURIGA Lucio Baggio Italy, INFN and University of Trento AURIGA.

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

Data Characterization in Gravitational Waves Soma Mukherjee Max Planck Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik Golm, Germany. Talk at University of Texas, Brownsville.

Simulation Of A Cooperative Protocol For Common Control Channel Implementation Prepared by: Aishah Thaher Shymaa Khalaf Supervisor: Dr.Ahmed Al-Masri.

LIGO G Z Perspectives on detector networks, and noise Lee Samuel Finn Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, Penn State University.

Detection and estimation of abrupt changes in Gaussian random processes with unknown parameters By Sai Si Thu Min Oleg V. Chernoyarov National Research.

LIGO-G Data Analysis Techniques for LIGO Laura Cadonati, M.I.T. Trento, March 1-2, 2007.

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.

The inclusion of sub-dominant modes in the signal brings additional modulation in the strain. This effect is visible on the time-frequency profile as measured.

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,

C. Palomba - DA Meeting Update on the analysis of VSR1 data, focusing attention on the presence of spectral disturbances. More data  more.

LIGO-G D Status of Stochastic Search with LIGO Vuk Mandic on behalf of LIGO Scientific Collaboration Caltech GWDAW-10, 12/15/05.

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.

LIGO- G D Burst Search Report Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting LIGO1 Plenary Session 18 August 2003 Hannover.

G030XXX-00-Z Excess power trigger generator Patrick Brady and Saikat Ray-Majumder University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee LIGO Scientific Collaboration.

LIGO-G Z Status of MNFTmon Soma Mukherjee +, Roberto Grosso* + University of Texas at Brownsville * University of Nuernberg, Germany LSC Detector.

1. Background A generic ‘chirp’ can be closely approximated by a connected set of multiscale chirplets with quadratically-evolving phase. The problem of.

LIGO-G Z Instrum. Lines and Blind CW Search K. Riles - University of Michigan 1 Status Report on Instrumental Line Catalog and Blind.

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

S.Frasca on behalf of LSC-Virgo collaboration New York, June 23 rd, 2009.

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

15-18 Dec 2004Spinning Black Hole Binaries1 Search for Spinning Black Hole Binaries in LIGO/GEO data: The First Steps Speaker: Gareth Jones LSC Inspiral.

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,

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.

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

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.

Comparison of filters for burst detection M.-A. Bizouard on behalf of the LAL-Orsay group GWDAW 7 th IIAS-Kyoto 2002/12/19.

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.

S5 First Epoch BNS Inspiral Results Drew Keppel 1 representing the Inspiral Group 1 California Institute of Technology Nov LSC Meeting MIT, 4 November.

Soma Mukherjee GWDAW8, Milwaukee, December'03 Interferometric Data Modeling: Issues in realistic data generation. Soma Mukherjee CGWA Dept. of Physics.

Soma Mukherjee LSC, Hanford, Aug.19 '04 Generation of realistic data segments: production and application. Soma Mukherjee Centre for Gravitational Wave.

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 Z Searching for gravitational wave bursts with the new global detector network Shourov K. Chatterji INFN Sezioni di Roma / Caltech LIGO.

S.Klimenko, LSC meeting, March 2002 LineMonitor Sergey Klimenko University of Florida Other contributors: E.Daw (LSU), A.Sazonov(UF), J.Zweizig (Caltech)

SEARCH FOR INSPIRALING BINARIES S. V. Dhurandhar IUCAA Pune, India.

MNFT : Robust detection of slow nonstationarity in LIGO Science data Soma Mukherjee Max Planck Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik Germany. LSC Meeting, Livingston,

SC03 failed results delayed FDS: parameter space searches

A 2 veto for Continuous Wave Searches

Bounding the strength of gravitational radiation from Sco-X1

The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO

Soma Mukherjee Centre for Gravitational Wave Astronomy

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

Coherent detection and reconstruction

WaveMon and Burst FOMs WaveMon WaveMon FOMs Summary & plans

M.-A. Bizouard, F. Cavalier

Targeted Searches using Q Pipeline

Stochastic background search using LIGO Livingston and ALLEGRO

Excess power trigger generator

Line tracking methods used in LineMon

J. Ellis, F. Jenet, & M. McLaughlin

CW Search Group Efforts – overview Michael Landry LIGO Hanford Observatory on behalf of the CW Search Group LSC Meeting June 6, 2004 Tufts University,

Uses of filters To remove unwanted components in a signal

Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Line Removal Techniques Bernard F. Whiting University of Florida (LSC 7, Hanford, Aug. 2000)

This Report Includes Work From: Philip Charlton (ANU & CalTech) Bob Coldwell (UF) Gordon Deane (ANU) Chris Hawkins (UF) Sergei Klimenko (UF) Bernard Whiting (UF & ANU)

Nature of Lines Mains (Line) Harmonics Large Amplitude (Coherent) Highly Non-Gaussian Violin Resonances Others (Known and Unknown)

Benefits of Line Removal Reduces Data Volume Improves Gaussianity  Better Matched Filter Implementation  Enables Better Use of Wavelets

Catalog of Methods Multi-Taper (Allen – Ottewill: GRASP) GRG 32, (2000) CLR (Sintes – Schutz: LAL) PRD 58, (1998), see also PRD 60, (1998) Kalman (Finn – Mukherjee: PSU) GR-QC Adaptive Filter (Chassande-Mottin – Dhurandhar) INT.J.MOD.PHYS.D9, (2000) Magnetometer (Finn – Mohanty: PSU) 3 rd Amaldi Proceedings, AIP Conf. Proc. 523, (2000) QMLR (Klimenko: DMT) LSC: Livingston (2000), Hanford (2000) CLR’ (Charlton – Deane: dctools) B. Eng thesis, ANU, June (2000) Cross Correlation (Allen – Ottewill: GRASP) GR-QC

Comparison via: Statistical Properties  expect Gaussianity to be improved  actually find residual non-Gaussian components Spectral Properties  “complete” removal of a line introduces artificial “glitch” in spectrum, whereas  “cleaned” data should have residual noise which is not strongly dependant on frequency Signal Detect Ability  Filter banks trigger even without GW signal (false detection due to noise)  Filter banks may fail to trigger on embedded signal (false rejection due to “threshold”)  How do line removal techniques affect false rejection rate for a given SNR threshold?

Following Pages Show: A. “Other” Coherent Line Removal by GRASP code. B. “Incoherent” mains noise at 600 Hz, and comparison with line removal codes at that frequency. C. “Other” lines near 180 & 300 Hz mains lines. D. Superimposed effects of removal in Klimenko code. E. Different levels of removal in Klimenko code. F. Spectral properties of Sintes LAL code. G. Superimposed effects of Sintes LAL & GRASP codes. H. Non-Gaussian residual at 180 & 300 Hz.

A. “Other” Coherent Line Removal by GRASP code.

B.i) “Incoherent” mains noise at 600 Hz.

B.ii) Comparison of line removal codes at 600 Hz.

C.i) “Other” lines near 180 Hz mains lines.

C.ii) “Other” lines near 300 Hz mains lines.

D.i) Superimposed with no removal.

D.ii) Superimposed effects of removal in Klimenko code.

E. Different levels of removal in Klimenko code (full).

F. Spectral properties of Sintes LAL code.

G.i) Superimposed effects of Sintes LAL code.

G.ii) Superimposed effects of GRASP code.

H.i) Non-Gaussian residual at 180 Hz.

H.ii) Non-Gaussian residual at 300 Hz.

Future Plans: Capitalize on correlation technique benefits. Inspect engineering run data. Prepare for short science run next year. Conclusions: There is a need for search algorithms to implement and compare line removal techniques. Need more uniform treatment for bad data. Short blocks currently give better results.